(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Minutes"

DOCUM 



ARTMENT 




San Francisco Public Library 

5ft Tloor 



REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



t « 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/2minutes2000sanf 



*<*-*-3U5 



Cancel** 



BOARD of SUPERVISORS 




City Hall 

Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 

San Francisco 94102-4689 

Tel. No. 554-5184 

Fax No. 554-5163 

TDD/TTY No. 544-5227 



.NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING . 

.FINANCE AND LABOR COMMITTEE 
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular meeting of the Finance and Labor 
committee scheduled for Wednesday, January 5, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. in committee 
room at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 263, City Hall, San Francisco, 
California, has been cancelled. 



Gloria L. Young 
Clerk of the Board 



, 



DOCUMENTS DEP- 
JAN -4 



SAN FRANCISCO 
p UBL!f | ibr ARY 



FINANCE AND LABOR COMMITTEE 
S.F. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY HALL, ROOM 244 

1 DR CARLTON GOODLETT PLACE 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-4689 

IMPORTANT HEARING NOTICE!!! 



Bill Lynch 

Govt Information Ctr 

41 Library 

100 Larldn Street 



3 1223 06010 6375 



%.2$H 



Il2./Zccc$c 




City and County of £an Francisco 

Meeting JMinutes 
^Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr Carlton B 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, January 12, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



Meeting Convened 



The meeting convened at 10:09 a.m. 



AGENDA CHANGES 



REGULAR AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DBP' 
JAN f g 20:3 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



991564 [City Employees Commuter Check Benefits] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing to consider how to provide commuter check benefits to encourage public transit use by City 
employees. 

8/9/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
12/15/99, CONTINUED Continued to January 12, 2000. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 11:26 AM on 1/14M 



4 47608 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
I PL 02/15/02 64 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes January 12, 2000 



991428 [Truth in Disclosure Act | 
Supervisor Yee 

Ordinance amending Planning Code Sections 306.1 and 306.3 to require disclosure in a conditional use or 
variance application and notice for public hearing of the name under which the applicant intends to conduct 
business, and requiring that applications be signed under penalty of perjury; and authorizing the Zoning 
Administrator to reject and delay the re-filing of an application that includes material misstatements or 
omissions; amending Building Code Section 106.3 to require disclosure in a building permit application of the 
name under which the applicant intends to conduct business, requiring that applications be signed under 
penalty of perjury, and authorizing the Director of Building Inspection to cancel and delay the re-filing of an 
application that includes material misstatements or omissions. 

(Amending Planning Code Sections 306.1 and 306.3; amends Building Code Section 106.3.) 

(Planning Commission Resolution No. 14929 adopted November 18, 1999 recommending proposed 

amendment with revision disclosed in the resolution. Certification of Exemption from environmental review 

dated September 9, 1999.) 

7/19/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 8/18/1999. 7/27/99 - Referred to Planning 

Commission and Building Inspection Commission for recommendations and review. 

10/12/99, SUBSTITUTED. Submitted by Supervisor Yee in Board, bearing same title. 

10/12/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 1 1/1 1/1999. 10/27/99 - Referred substitute 

legislation to Planning Commission and Building Inspection Commission for recommendations and review 

12/1/99, AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE Heard in Committee. Speakers Harvey Rose, 

Budget Analyst, Paul Rosetler, City Planning Department; Supervisor Yee, Supervisor Bierman, Garret Jenkins, Tenderloin Coalition. 

Amendment of the Whole reflecting amendments from City Planning and sponsor 

12/1/99, RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED 

12/6/99, AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. Supervisor Yee moved an amendment of the 

whole bearing new title. 

12/6/99, CONTINUED AS AMENDED ON FIRST READING A request was made to continue this matter to December 13, 1999. 

12/13/99, RE-REFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee Supervisor Yee, seconded by Supervisor Newsom, moved that this matter be 

continued to December 20, 1999 

Supervisor Teng moved substitute motion to re -refer this matter to Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Yee; Rolf Mueller, Inner Sunset Merchants Association; Pat 
Christian, Inner Sunset Association; Steven Cornell, Small Business Commission; Garrett Jenkins, North of 
Market Planning Coalition; Beryl Magilavy; Jerry Clarke, South of Market Coalition, Bud Wilson, Greater 
West Portal Association; Rae Doyle, Greater West Portal Association; Gerry Crowley, Telegraph Hill 
Dwellers Association; Anastasia Yovanopoulos, Noe Tenants Association. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 11:26 ,4M on 1/14AH) 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



January 12, 2000 



992315 [Funds for emergency winter shelter) 
Supervisors Ammiano, Katz 

Ordinance appropriating $73,353 from the General Fund Reserve to fund an emergency winter shelter for 

homeless gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender youth, at the Department of Public Health, for fiscal year 1999- 

2000. 

12/20/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Bierman; 

Eric Politizer, Ark of Refuge, Inc.; Barbara Garcia, Department of Public Health; Sergeant Pablo Ossio, 

Mission Station, Police Department; Inspector Patrick Stranahan, Fire Department; Rev. Jim Mitulski, 

Metropolitan Community Church (MCC); Supervisor Yee. Opposed: Tom Morgansen; M. A. Hatakeyama; 

Lorraine Sherrill, Friends ofNoe Valley; Grace Atherton, President, Noe Valley Community Workgroup 

(NVCW); Alfred Sekara; Hilbert Curran; Rachel Callaghan, NVCW; Sylvia Kundig; Eleanore Gerhardt; 

Howard Fallon; Mark Stuart Ong; Jerry Steiner; Harry Aleo, Noe Valley Merchants; Renee Stephens; Stephen 

Fowler; Suzanne Walters; Young & Andrea Wong; Bill Elliott; Anastasia Yovanopoulos, Noe Valley Tenants 

Association; Michael Louie; Gary Levenberg; Dana Atherton. In Support: Marybeth Wallace; Amy 

Ahlstrom, Neighbors for the Shelter; John DiDonnit; Vicki Rosen, Upper Noe Neighbors; Anna Mills, 

Neighbors for the Shelter; Tawnee Walling, MCC; William Wilson; Michael Chertok; Anthony Grumbeck; 

Sandy O'Neil; Mitch Thompson; Michael Cain; Lisa Jaicks; Charlie Lichtman; Rev. Glenda Hope, S. F. 

Network Ministries; Jewnbug, Youth Commision; Dain DeMarco; Delphina Brody, Lesbian Avengers. 

Amended to place $73,353 on reserve; new title. Supervisor Bierman added as cosponsor. 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance appropriating $73,353 from the General Fund Reserve to fund an emergency winter shelter for 

homeless gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender youth, at the Department of Public Health, for fiscal year 1999- 

2000; placing $73,353 on reserve. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Bierman, Ammiano 

Noes: 1 - Yee 



992209 [Sewer Replacement, Filbert/Rose Streets] 

Resolution approving the expenditure of funds for the emergency work to replace the structurally inadequate 
sewer in Filbert Street from Van Ness Avenue to Franklin Street and Rose Street from Gough Street to Market 
Street - $248,734.00. (Public Utilities Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

12/1/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Donald Chan, Public Utilities Commission. 
Amended on page 1, line 24 to increase cost projection to $256,083, and cost of construction contract to 
$196,933; same title. 
AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 11:26 AM on 1/1 V00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



January 12, 2000 



992269 |2000-2002 Children's Services Plan (Charter amendment enacted in November 1991) - The Mayor's 

Office of Children Youth and Their Families creates this plan each year to allocate the Children's Fund] 

Resolution approving the Children's Services Plan for the San Francisco Children's Fund in accordance with 
Charter Section 16.018. (Mayor) 

12/8/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the 
January 5, 2000 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Nani Coloretti, Director of Budget and 
Planning, Department of Children, Youth & Their Families (DCYF); Supervisor Yee; Taj James, Coleman 
Advocates for Children. Amended on lines 2, 18 and 24 to correct Section number from "16.018" to "16.108"; 
new title. 
AMENDED. 

Resolution approving the Children's Services Plan for the San Francisco Children's Fund in accordance with 
Charter Section 16.108. (Mayor) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000001 [Reserved Funds, Department of Children, Youth and Their Families | 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of Children, Youth and Their families, (Fiscal Year 
1999-2000 Budget), in the amount totaling $550,000, ($200,000 in Children's Fund and $350,000 in General 
Funds), for the implementation of the School Based Health Pilot Program. (Mayor) 
12/22/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Deborah Alvarez-Rodriguez, Director, 
Department of Children, Youth & Their Families (DCYF); Supervisor Yee; James Loyce, Deputy Director of 
Health; Sally Chou, Associate Superintendent, S. F. Unified School District; Taj James, Colman Advocates for 
Children. Amended to only release $200,000. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



992311 |Lease of property owned by Herbst Foundation on the second floor of 30 Van Ness Avenue for DPH- 
Children, Youth and Families Section for the term of 5 years at a monthly rate of $44,325.00| 

Resolution authorizing a lease at 30 Van Ness for the Department of Health's Children Youth and Families 
Section. (Real Estate Department) 

12/16/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi, Real Estate Department 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



992301 [Acquisition of 4 noise easements for religious assembly buildings (at Alida Way and Alta Vista Drive), 
City of South San Francisco, in order to satisfy State-mandated noise mitigation requirements! 

Resolution authorizing the acquisition of four (4) noise easements for properties in the City of South San 
Francisco as part of the Airport Commission's aircraft noise insulation program. (Real Estate Department) 
12/15/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi. Real Estate Department 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 11:26 AM on 1/14AI0 



Fimnce and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



January 12, 2000 



992302 [Acquisition of 195 additional noise easements in the cities of Millbrae and one (1) in South San 

Francisco for the purpose of satisfying a part of the State-mandated noise mitigation requirements] 

Resolution authorizing the acquisition of noise easements from 195 property addresses in the cities of Millbrae 
and South San Francisco as part of the Airport Master Plan Memorandum of Understanding between the 
Airport and its neighboring communities. (Real Estate Department) 
12/15/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi, Real Estate Department. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



992303 [Withdrawal of 26 property owners (located in the Cities of Millbrae, San Bruno, Daly City and 

Pacifica) from noise insulation program for various reasons and delivery of quitclaim deeds to said 
property owners] 

Resolution authorizing the conveyance of twenty-six (26) quitclaim deeds to various property owners in San 
Mateo County to rescind Grants of Easement (noise easement deeds) previously acquired by San Francisco. 
(Real Estate Department) 

12/15/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi, Real Estate Department. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



992309 [Permitting non-City workers to perform work for the City because non-City workers can perform 
work at a lesser cost than City employees - Victim services for the District Attorney] 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification that assistance to certain victims of crime and 
education in community anti-street violence can be practically performed for the District Attorney's Victim 
Witness Assistance Program by a private contract for a lower cost than similar work services performed by 
City and County employees. (District Attorney) 
12/16/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Amended to provide retroactivity; new title. 
AMENDED. 

Resolution concurring retroactively, with the Controller's certification that assistance to certain victims of 
crime and education in community anti-street violence can be practically performed for the District Attorney's 
Victim Witness Assistance Program by a private contract for a lower cost than similar work services 
performed by City and County employees. (District Attorney) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



992259 [Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 1998-1999] 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to consider the Fiscal Year 1998-1999 Comprehensive Annual Audit. 

1 2/6/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Ed Harrington, Controller; Supervisor Yee. 

Supervisor Ammiano 

FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 1 J :26 AM on MVOO 



finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes January 12, 2000 

ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 6 Primed at 1 1 : 26 .AM on 1/14/00 






Public Library,Gov't Info. Ctr., 5 th Fir. 
Attn: Susan Horn 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 



1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



January 6, 2000 
TO: .Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 
Item 3 - File 99-2315 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JAN 2 5 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department of Public Health 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance for $73,353 
from the General Fund Reserve to fund an 
emergency winter shelter for homeless 
gayAesbian/transgender youth. 

$73,353 

General Fund Reserve 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would be 
used to fund an emergency winter shelter program 
targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer 
and questioning young adults at the Metropolitan 
Community Church located at 1508 Church Street, 
near the intersection of 26 th Street in Noe Valley. 
The proposed program would provide nine to ten 
beds per night, beginning February 15, 2000 and 
extending for four months, through June 15. '2.000. 
Under this program, although the Metropolitan 
Community Church would provide the facility and 
be paid rent ($1,000 per month), utilities and 
building maintenance expenses totalniL; 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

approximately $7,750 for the four month period, 
the Ark of Refuge, Inc., a non-profit HIV/AIDs 
service organization, would provide all of the 
staffing and other services at a cost of 
approximately $65,603. 

Budget: As shown in Attachment I, provided by Mr. Eric 

Politzer of Ark of Refuge. Inc., the proposed budget 
totals $73,353, which is the amount of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation. However, the Budget 
Analyst notes that the actual total of the reported 
budgeted amounts is $73,253, or $100 less than the 
requested amount. Therefore, the proposed 
supplemental appropriation should be reduced by 
$100, from $73,353 to $73,253. 

Comments: 1. As shown in the budget Attachment I. Ark of 

Refuge. Inc. would provide 11 staffing positions 
under the proposed temporary 4-month contract. 
Mr. Politzer advises that the Executive Director. 
Project Manager and Finance Officer are existing 
positions within Ark of Refuge, Inc. The two Lead 
Counselors ($15 per hour), two Counselors ($13 per 
hour). Janitor ($10 per hour). Van Driver ($10 per 
hour) and Volunteer Coordinator ($15 per hour) 
would be hired on a contract basis for the duration 
of the proposed project. According to Mr. Politzer, 
Ark of Refuge is proposing a very labor intensive 
program, which will cost approximately S18.313 
per month ($73,253 divided by four months) to 
provide up to ten beds per night due to the highly 
challenged target group of the clients, which are 
homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer 
and questioning youth, and that most of the staff 
would be hired on a contract basis for only a limited 
amount of time. 

2. During the FY 1999-2000 budget deliberations, a 
separate reserve of $250,000 was established 
within the Department of Public Health for a 
permanent Queer Youth Center on Market Street. 
Ms. Peg Stevenson of the Controller's Office reports 
that to date, none of the $250,000 of funds have 
been expended. However. Ms. Stevenson advises 
that these previously set aside funds of $250,000 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



are intended for a long-term permanent project, 
and were therefore not used as the source to fund 
the proposed temporary winter shelter program for 
gay youth. As noted above, the source of funds for 
the proposed project is the City's General Fund 
Reserve. 

3. Mr. Politzer advises that Ark of Refuge provided 
emergency winter shelter for approximately 30 
young adults per night at 1025 Howard Street in 
the South of Market area during the Winter of 
1997-98, in response to El Nino and the 
displacement of homeless persons from Golden 
Gate Park. According to Mr. Politzer this FY 1997- 
98 shelter program, which extended for three 
months, was funded through a contract with the 
Department of Human Services. Mr. Politzer 
further advises that Ark of Pv,efuge provided 
emergency winter shelter for approximately 30 
young adults per night at the Eureka Valley 
Recreation Center on Collingwood Street in the 
Castro neighborhood during the Winter of 199S-99, 
at a cost of approximately $70,000 for a ten-week 
program. This FY 1998-99 program was funded 
through a contract with the Mayor's Office of 
Community Development. According to Mr. 
Politzer, Ark of Refuge was selected on a sole 
source basis for this subject project because of their 
experience in providing similar projects during the 
past two winters. 

4. Ms. Anne Okubo of the Department of Public 
Health (DPH) reports that DPH does not have 
additional documentation or budget details on the 
project. However, Ms. Okubo advises that if the 
proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance is 
approved, DPH would develop a new sole source 
contract with Ark of Refuge, Inc. or could 
alternatively modify an existing contract with Ark 
of Refuge, Inc. to provide the requested services. 
According to Ms. Okubo, Ark of Refuge currently 
has a $282,480 contract with DPH to provide 
residential substance abuse treatment for HIV 
women. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit tee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

5. Mr. Politizer advises that a new young adult 
(ages 18-25) homeless facility is currently being 
developed by the Larkin Street Youth Center for 40 
beds per night at a cost of approximately $450,000. 
According to Mr. Politizer. this new facility, to be 
called Lark Inn, is scheduled to open within the 
next two months located near the Tenderloin 
neighborhood. 

6. The proposed emergency winter shelter program 
is scheduled to be effective for the four-month 
period from February 15, 2000 through June 15, 
2000. Based on the Budget Analyst's observation of 
(1) the relatively high cost of the proposed program 
($73,253), (2) the limited number of clients to be 
served by the program (9-10 per night), (3) the 
longer time period than in prior years (FY 1997-98 
was three months; FY" 1998-99 was ten v. 
proposed program is four months), (4) that the Lark 
Inn facility for homeless youth near the Tenderloin 
neighborhood will be open within the next two 
months and (5) that the program would extend into 
mid-June, considerably beyond when the City has 
previously provided emergency winter shelter 
programs, Mr. Politzer has provided a revised 
budget of $54,290. as shown in Attachment II, to 
reduce the proposed emergency shelter winter 
program by one month. The proposed program 
would therefore extend for three months, from 
February 15, 2000 through May 15, 2000, at an 
additional cost savings of $18,963. 

Recommendations: Reduce the proposed supplemental of S73.353 by 
$19,063 ($100 due to the actual amount requested 
in the budget and $18,963 due to a reduction of one 
month of time), resulting in a total requested need 
of $54,290. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as 
amended, is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 






f^z c: 



DRAFT BUDGET 

GOLDEN' GATE MCC VTSTER. SHELTER 

(Jaaaajy. 1559 - May. 2CC0) 



s 1.100 

ir^-* 1 " 4 **?* s 1.6C0 

obiter Dc*=r S 5.2C0 

Lsasi Ccu-j-jcr; (2) $2! 500 

Ccu^i-iora (2) 3 936O 

■ CCTk=r $ 1333 

5 3,120 
$ 3.120 
S L2g 

SubTc^J $48,133 

Start Up rx?acca«l Cosu S 33C0 





5 4.000" 
S 2,750^ 
5 30C 
=c:;a^.;Tairi*a&3c= 5 1.000" 

Frizzy od wpodacaea S 500 



^^^JejccccBsiap $ 700 

rccd S 5,<i00 

T ' ■ •rv i r v $ 2300 

Ofiicj Sus^iies S 400 

R»dcnl ^occUea $ 750 

Jrakcda] Scppflea S l_gCC 

SaixoUi 520,200 



Rllcwi 





: S7 ,750 for Metropolitan Ccrrruriicv Church 




R£. r UG£ MJMSTkIE: 



DRAFT BUDGET 
GOLDEN' GATE MCC LISTER SH] 
(Jiaut^f. 1959 - Miy. 2CC0) 



Attachment II 



Revised 



c^jcusve Direct 
Pre*«G Mts«je; 

Sbeiiar Diraccr 
Lead CeuaKJcrs (2) 
CouE*eion (2) 

Hi*nc* Officer 
J*mtor 
Van Driver 
Vduaioer < 

Sub Tool 

Surt Up Piraocael Cccj 

Qaeaaa 

Real 
Utilfeiw 

Fbc&e 

Bciicir.* raurtjcaacx 

Injurmcs 

Primiaj sod rrprcoicoca 

Acvera»e job ocaencrj 

Feed 

Lxyoarv 

Ofiica SiiopiiM 

Reaadcai Supelie* 

Jiakccia] Scppiia 

Subtoui 

Blxakea 
FUlowi 

Pillow r-! ^^ 

Tcweij 

Piece 

?booe iualltacn 

Kilc^aa Suspiirj 

Subscui 



S 1.100 
S 1.600 
S 5 .200 
S21.S00 
5 9360 
S 1333 
S 3.120 
5 3.120 
5 | ^00 

«.:33 

$ 3300 



S 4.000 T 
S 2,750 -• 
S 3CC 
3 1.000^' 
$ 1.000 
S 500 
$ 700 
S 3.400 
S 2.500 
$ 400 
$ 750 

S LfflB 

520,200 



$ 


750 


1, 


080 


3, 


600 


16. 


128 


6: 


;552 


i 


,000 


2 


520 





520 


1 


440 



5 1.520 
ST3,J53 



35,590 
3,300 



3,000** 

1,000** 
225. * 

750" " 

750 

400 

700 
3,780 
1,875 

30C 

500 

750 

14,030 



200 
250 
70 
250 
100 
250 

1 370 



$54,290 



■ $7,750 for Metropolitan ConEwnity Church 

'$4,750 for Metropolitan Cotnmunitv Church 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 11. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File No. 99-2209 






Department: 



Item: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Department of Public Works (DPW) 
Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Resolution approving the expenditure of funds for the 
emergency work to replace two structurally inadequate 
sewers on (a) Filbert Street from Van Ness Avenue to 
Franklin Street and (b) Rose Street from Gough Street to 
Market Street. 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Budget: 



$248,734 

Previously reserved 1995 Series B PUC Sewer Revenue 
Bond funds 

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) advises that on 
September 9, 1999, the sewers located on (a) Filbert 
Street from Van Ness Avenue to Franklin Street and Ob) 
Rose Street from Gough Street to Market Street failed, 
and immediate replacement was required in order to 
protect the health, welfare, and property of the citizens of 
San Francisco. The PUC declared an emergency on 
September 13, 1999. In accordance with Section 6.30 of 
the Administrative Code, the PUC initiated expedited 
contract procedures, and awarded a contract to Ham- 
Pipelines, Inc. in the amount of $189,584. 

Attachment I, provided by the DPW, contains a 
description of the subject sewer replacement work. 

The final total project cost was $256. OSS. including 
$196,933 for construction contract costs, $28,650 for DPW 
engineering costs. $26,500 for DPW construction 
management costs and $4,000 for Department of Parking 
and Traffic (DPT) traffic management costs. As shown m 
the attached memorandum provided by DPW 
(Attachment II), the final contract costs of $196,933 were 
$7,349 greater than the original contract amount of 
$189,584 because (a) of a debit in the amount $13.S49 for 
pavement restoration, and (b) a credit in the amount of 
$6,500 for actual quantities of materials used during 
construction, totaling $7,349 ($13.S49 less $6,500). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit: 

January 11. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

A summary of this budget is as follows: 

Final Construction Contract $196,933 

DPW Bureau of Engineering 28,650 

DPW Bureau of Construction Management 26,500 

DPT Traffic Management 4.000 

Total $256,083 

Attachment III, provided by the DPW. details the DPW 
Bureau of Engineering and Bureau of Construction 
Management costs. DPT traffic management costs of 
$ 1.000 are based upon approximately 44 hours at $90 per 
hour for a DPT engineer to design traffic diversion 
specifications for the proposed project, according to Mr. 
Peter Cheng of the DPW. 

1. Invitations for proposals were faxed to 20 contractors 
on September 16, 1999. Two quotations were received by 
PUC from qualified contractors on September 17, 1999. 
PUC reports that Harty Pipelines, Inc. submitted the 
lowest quotation and was awarded the contract in the 
amount of $189,584. The following table lists the 
contractors who submitted quotations, the amounts of the 
quotations and the MBEAVBE/LBE status of the 
contractors: 



Comments: 



Contractor 

Harty Pipelines, Inc. 

JMB Construction 



Quotation 
$189,584 

$21 ; 



MBE/LBE Status 
LBEAVBE 
MBE/LBE 



Recommendations: 



2. PUC reports that the replacement of the damaged 
sewers began on October 13, 1999 and was completed on 
October 19, 1999. 

3. The resolution states that the projected project cost is 
$248,734, of which $189,584 is for the construction 
contract. However, as noted in this report, the final 
project cost is $256,083, of which $196,933 is for the 
construction contract. 

1. Amend the proposed resolution to reflect the total 
projected costs of $256,083 and the construction costs of 
$196,933 in accordance with Comment No. 3 above. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

8 



Attachment I 



AGENDA ITEM 
Public Utilities Commission 

City and County of San Francisco 



DEPARTMENT; Utiiiti«s Engineering Bureau AGENDA NO. 




MEETING DATE November 23, 1999 



SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: 

Ratifying the Declaration of Emergency made by the President of the Public Utilities 
Commission for Clean Water Program Contract No. CW-258E, " Filbert Street/Rose Street 
Emergency Sewer Replacement," and Requesting the Board of Supervisors to approve the 
expenditure of funds for the emergency work to replace the structurally inadequate sewer. 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION: 

The sewer replacement work being performed under this Emergency is on Filbert Street from 
Van Ness Avenue to Franklin Street and Rose Street from Gough Street to Market Street. 

It consists of traffic routing and trench support work; replacing the existing sewer with 
approximately 255 feet of 12-inch and 408 feet of 18-inch diameter vitrified day pipe (VCP) 
sewer on crushed rock bedding; constructing concrete manholes, 10-inch diameter VCP 
culverts, and 6 or 8-inch diameter side sewer connections; slipllning the existing 3' x 5' brick 
sewer with 12-Inch diameter VCP sewer; videotaping existing active side sewers; repairing 
and/or replacing existing defective active side sewers and water traps for catchbasins 
(deletable bid item); constructing bulkhead wall; removing existing sewer and sewer 
structures; handling, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes, toxic materials, and 
serpentine soils should they be encountered at the work site (deletable bid item); videotaping 
the newly constructed main sewer; plugging and filling existing sewer with slurry grout; 
constructing cut-off walls; supporting, working around, and protecting certain San Francisco 
Water Department, Fire Department, and other utility agency and company facilities in 
conjunction with the work under this contract; and performing all related and incidental work; 
all where and as shown on the contract plans and specifications and in accordance with the 
San Francisco DPW Standard. Specification dated July 1986. The work includes all planning, 
design, and construction support services (under Job Order No. 0119J). 

APPROVALS: 



Michael E. Quan 



Romaine A. Boldridge 



City and County of San Francisco 




Willi* Lsmtnn Brown, Jr., Mayor 
Mark A. Prlmaau, Architect. AIA. Director 






Attachment II 

415 554-e325 
554-6308 

h: - ,p /:vwv/ stapw ioti 



Department ol Public Works 

Bureau ot Engineering 

Hydraulic Engineering 

1680 Mission Stree: 2" c Ficc 

San Francisco. CA 94103-24' 4 

Norman W. Chan, Sec'.ioi t.'a'ace- 



MEMORANDUM 



To: 



From: 



Subject: 



Scverin Campbell 

Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst Office 



Date: January 6. 2000 



Christine Tan 
Assistant Ptoj 



ject Manages^ 



Job Order No. 01 19J, Contract No. CW-258E, "Filbert/ Rose Streets 
Emergency Sewer Replacement" 



The following information serves to clarify the cost changes for the emergency 
construction contract. 

The contract was awarded for $189,584.00. A construction change order was issued in 
the debit amount of $13,849.00 to perform pavement restoration that was required in 
order to comply with the Street Construction Coordination Center (SCCO regulations, 
credit amount of $6,500.00 was also issued to adjust for actual quantities used dunng 
construction. This brought the final contract cost to SI 96,933.00. 

If you have any quesuons. please feel free to contact me at 554-833 1 . Thank You. 



cc. Norman Chan, Project Manager 



t Um n^ VtNQ THE QUALITY Of IXFt IN SAN FRAMCtSCC Wf an* ovdisated <rx*wduaii commit*} » l«\a/T>i¥onx 
ouuomar mmnio» mna oananuoum Hpw » — X « ^Mnnmr^mp .vrri er>» eammurvty 
CUttomm JsMfc* /*>07?»0* Continuous krorovamorv 



10 



Attachment III 



Cost Breakdown for (J.0. 0119 J, Contract CW-258E) 
Filbert Street/Rose Street Sewer System Improvement 



Bureau of Engineering 



Classification 



Title 



Rate Hours 



Cost 



5505 


Project Manager 11 


$92 


16 


$ 1,472 


5206 


Associate Civil Engineer 


$75 


112 


S 8,400 


5202 


Junior Engineer 


$50 


100 


$5,000 


5366 


Civil Engineering Associate 11 


$60 


160 


S 9.600 


5381 


Student Trainee 11 


$33 


60 


$ 1,980 


1426 


Secretary 


$43 


50 


$2,150 










$28,602 








Rounded 


$28,650 



Bureau of Construction Management 



Classification 


Title 




Rate 


Hours 


Cost 




5210 
5208 
5204 
6318 


Senior Civil Engineer 
Civil Engineer 
Assistant Civil Engineer 
Construction Inspector 




$100 

$80 

S59 

$74 


16 

30 
100 

224 


5 1,600 
$2,400 
5 5,900 
$16,576 












Roundec 


$26,476 
$26,500 






Post-it* rax Note 7$71 














o»t» 


1 »(V w 

|P*OOJ r 






"£Af?efAi 


From 


K&K 


o#w^ 






CO ./Dipt. 


Co. 


i 


/ 






Prwni • /? 


Prion* 


' 2?9t-J 






w 267-6Q.U 


Fun . 





11 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 99-2269 






Department: 



Item: 



Description: 



Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families 
(DCYF) 

Ptesolution approving the Children's Services Plan for the 
San Francisco Children's Fund in accordance with 
Charter Section 16.018. 

Proposition J, commonly known as the "Children's 
Amendment", was approved b} r the electorate in 
November of 1991. The Children's Amendment amended 
the Charter to require the establishment of the San 
Francisco Children's Fund. The San Francisco Children's 
Fund augments the existing level of expenditures for 
sendees and programs for children. 

The Children's Amendment requires that the Mayor 
submit to the Board of Supervisors, by December of each 
year, a "Children's Services Plan" for the next fiscal year 
to specif}' the goals and objectives to be achieved through 
expenditures from the Children's Fund, to outline 
proposals for expenditures from the Children's Fund, and 
to recommend City Departments to administer the funded 
programs. The Department of Children, Youth, and Their 
Families (DCYF) has submitted a Children's Services 
Plan for a two-year period, from July 1, 2000 through 
June 30, 2001 and from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 
2002. The proposed resolution would approve the FY 
2000-2001 and FY' 2001-2002 Children's Services Plan. 



Budget: 



The proposed FY 2000-2001 Children's Services Plan has 
a projected budget of $17,386,005 and the FY 2001-2002 
Children's Services Plan has a projected budget of 
S18. 255.305. 



The budget previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors for FY 1999-2000 and the proposed budgets 
for FY 2000-2001 and FY 2001-2002 are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



FY 1999-2000 



FY' 2000-2001 



FY' 2001-2002 



City Department 

Programs 
Community Based 

Programs 
Evaluation 
Administration 
Total 



$ 1,857,832 

14.282.100 

700,000 

1.497.781 

$18,337,713 



$ 1,857.832 

13,620,695 

300,000 

1.607.478 

$17,386,005 



SI. 857.832 

14.409,651 

300,000 

1.687.822 

$18,255,305 



The Attachment, provided by DCYF, contains further 
budget details for the proposed Children's Services Plan 
budget for each fiscal vear. 



Comments: 



1. The Children's Amendment requires that the City 
maintain a level of expenditure for children's services 
which is equal to or greater than the level of expenditure 
in FY 1990-91 or 1991-92, whichever is greater, and sets 
aside a certain percentage of Property Tax revenues to 
fund additional services above and beyond the level of 
services funded prior to adoption of the Children's 
Amendment. The amount of these Property Tax revenues 
is 2.5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation for FY' 2000- 
2001. The Children's Amendment will expire after a total 
often years on June 30, 2002. 

2. In 1992, the Controller certified that the City's 
appropriations for children's services prior to adoption of 
the Children's Amendment totaled approximately $50 
million. This baseline amount of approximately $50 
million represents the required minimum expenditure by 
the City for children's services in each of the ten fiscal 
years. Each succeeding year, the baseline amount is 
adjusted annually by the percentage change in aggregate 
City appropriations since the base year. 

3. The amount of the Children's Fund appropriation in 
the approved FY* 1999-2000 budget is $18,337,713. 
According to the Controller's Office, the estimated 
Children's Fund amount of $17,386,005 to be 
appropriated for FY 2000-2001 and $18,255,305 to be 
appropriated for FY 2001-2002 are based on current 
estimates of Property Tax revenues for those years. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



According to Mr. Joe Matranga of the Controller's Office, 
the projected budgets for FY 2000-2001 and FY 2001-2002 
are less than the approved budget for FY" 1999-2000 
because the FY 1999-2000 Children's Fund appropriation 
included one-time funding 1 . 

4. The Children's Amendment requires a public planning 
process, in which public hearings are to be held by the 
Health Commission, Juvenile Probation Commission, 
Human Services Commission, Public Library 
Commission, Recreation and Park Commission, and 
Youth Commission. According to Ms. Deborah Alvarez- 
Rodriguez of DCYF, such hearings were held on 
November 17, 1999, November 18, 1999, December 6. 
1999, and December 7, 1999. 

5. The administrative costs in FA* 1999-2000 of $1,497,781 
represent 8.2 percent of the total Children's Services Plan 
budget for FY 1999-2000. However, as noted in the 
Attachment provided by DCYF, the proposed FY 2000- 
2001 and FY 2001-2002 Children's Services Plan budgets 
include administrative costs of 9.2 percent compared to 
the 8.2 percent level in FY 1999-2000. According to Ms. 
Alvarez-Rodriguez, the increased percentage level of 
administrative costs for FY 2000-2001 and FY 2001-2002 
over FY 1999-2000 have resulted from an increase in 
rent 2 and from increased administrative support for 
Proposition 10. Tobacco Tax revenues allocated for 
children's services, and the Children's Planning Advisory 
Council (CPAC) 3 . 

The Children's Amendment contains no language 
specifying maximum administrative costs. These 

administrative costs would support DCYF activities, a 
Children's Services Plan community assessment process, 
technical services, and administrative costs at the various 
departments receiving Children's Fund monies. 



1 Mr. Matranga states that the Children's Fund earned forward a balance of SI. 565. 000 from FY 
1998-99 that was included in the FY 1999-2000 appropriation. 

2 The increase m rent is a result of an additional 1.217 square feet of office space and an increase in 
the rental rate O^ile 99-2073). 

3 Ms. Alvarez-Rodriguez states that DCYF has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with 
CPAC to provide office space and administrative support, effective February of 2000. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit! 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

6. According to Ms. Alvarez-Rodriguez, the Board of 
Supervisors approved a two-year cycle for the planning 
and allocation of Children's Fund monies when the FY 
1999-2000 Children's Services Plan was reviewed. 
Therefore, DCYF has submitted this Children's Services 
Plan for the two-year period from July 1. 2000 through 
June 30, 2001, and July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. 
Ms. Alvarez-Rodriguez states that DCYF will present an 
update to the subject Children's Services Plan for FY" 
2001-2001 and the annual Children's Fund appropriation 
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in December 
of 2000 for review and approval, in accordance with 
current requirements of the Children's Amendment. 

7. Approval of the proposed resolution would not 
authorize the appropriation of any funds, but would 
approve the Children's Services Plan from July 1, 2000 
through June 30, 2002, in conformance with the Ch;:: 
The expenditure of all funds would still be subject to 
appropriation approval by the Board of Supervisors in the 
FY 2000-2001. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



si/oj/zoao u:aa aismawibn 



PAGE 62 
Attachment 



DCYF BUDGET 







Budget 


Projected Budget 


Projected Budget 




FY 1999/2000 


FY 2000/2001 


FY 2001/2002 


^xperm 












Administrative: 












Salary 


$ 


886,081 


$ 912,663 


s 


940,043 


Fringe 3enefits 




214,800 


221,230 




227,867 


Renr 




127,400 


196,000 




234,000 


Materials and Supplies 




50,500 


52,015 




53,575 


Agency Support 




30,000 


30,900 




31,827 


Other Office Expenses 




126,620 


130,419 




134,331 


Travel/Training 




27,630 


28,510 




29,366 


Services of Other DeDts" 




34,700 


35.741 




36,813 


Total Admin Expenses 


$ 


1,497,781 


$ 1,607,478 


s 


1,687,822 


Funding for CBO's 


$ 


14,282,100 


$ 13,620,695 


$ 


14,409,651 


Funding for City Depts 


s 


1,857,832 


$ 1,857,832 


$ 


1,857,832 


Evaluation 


$ 


700,000 


$ 300,000 


$ 


300,000 


Total Expenses & Children's Fund 












Revenue: 


$ 


18,337,713 


$ 17,386,005 


$ 


18,255,305 



Administrative Expense as a 
Percentage of the Total Fund: 



8% 



9% 



9% 



* The increase in rent is a result of 1) ari additional 1,217 square Teet of additional space, and 2) a rent increase 
per square foot. 

**S34.700 is $1 50.000 less than S1 84,700, the amount that appears in the 1999-2000 Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance. The $150,000 is represented here as a portion of the $1,857,832 allocated to "Funding for City 
Departments" as per the Children Services Plan developed In 1998-99. 

*** Administrative costs have increased due to 1) an increase In rent and 2) administrative support for 
Proposition 10 and the Children's Planning Advisory Council (CPAC). 



16 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 00-0001 



Department: 



Item: 



Department of Children. Youth, and Their Families 
(DCYF) 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $550,000 for the implementation of the School 
Based Health Pilot Project. 



Amount: 



8550,000 



Source of Funds: 



Funds previously appropriated and reserved b} T the Board 
of Supervisors in the FY 1999-2000 DCYF budget. 
According to Ms. Deborah Alvarez- Rodriguez of DCYF, of 
the $550,000, 8200,000 comes from the Children's Fund 
and S350.000 comes from the General Fund. 



Description: 



During the FY 1999-2000 budget process, the Board of 
Supervisors placed $550,000 on reserve for the School 
Based Health Pilot Program. Funds for the School Based 
Health Pilot Program were placed on reserve by the 
Board of Supervisors, pending the submission of program 
and budget details, and obtaining a revenue contribution 
from the SFUSD. DCYF convened a School Health Task 
Force in August of 1999, comprised of 17 members, 
including representatives from the Department of Public 
Health (DPH), the San Francisco Unified School District 
(SFUSD), and private and public agencies, to develop a 
proposal for the School Based Health Pilot Program. The 
purpose of the School Based Health Pilot Program is to 
increase access to health sendees for public school 
students by providing such sendees at the school site or 
by creating links with community based health services. 

The Task Force has recommended that two high schools, 
Lincoln and Galileo High Schools, be selected as the sites 
for the pilot program. Each high school would be 
allocated $275,000 in funds (one-half of $550,000), and 
would develop a budget and spending plan for the 
8275.000, incorporating the recommendations of the Task 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Force and the Local School Health Promotion Committee 1 . 
The two high schools would be able to select health 
services for its students from a menu of services, 
including mental health and psycho-social services, 
referrals to off-site services, and physical health services. 
Funds would also be used for quality assessment of the 
services provided and for program management, billing, 
and administration costs. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Deborah Alvarez- Rodriguez of DCYF. 

the pilot program would be a one-time only program, 
beginning February 1, 2000 and ending December 31, 
2000. Ms. Alvarez-Rodriguez states that each high school 
would be able to expend up to $275,000 to provide the 
selected health sen-ices to students. Of the $275,000, 
$13,750, or 5 percent of the total allocation, would be 
available for quality assurance performed by DPH 
nursing or physician staff. Additionally, Ms. Alvarez- 
Rodriguez states that each school would be reimbursed for 
no more than $41,250, or 15 percent of the total 
allocation, for program management, administration and 
billing costs. Ms. Alvarez-Rodriguez advises that each 
school would be required to set up a billing system in 
order to bill other funding sources, such as Medi-Cal. 

2. Ms. Alvarez- Rodriguez states that the SFUSD would 
contribute $28,000 from the Tobacco Use Education Grant 
and $70,000 from the Safe School/Healthy Student 
Initiative for the School Based Health Pilot Project, 
totaling $98,000. 

Ms. Alvarez-Rodriguez states that the SFUSD funds 
would be used to provide nursing services, quality 
assurance activities, and other programs at Galileo and 
Lincoln High Schools as part of the School Based Pilot 
Program. In addition, DPH Community Mental Health 
Services currently provides mental health services at 
Galileo High School, which would also be included in the 
School Based Pilot Program. 



1 The Local School Health Promotion Committee is a school-based committee, mandated by the 
California Education Code and comprised of parents, teachers, students, and community-based 
organizations. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
18 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



3. Ms. Alvarez-R-odriguez advises that some of the school- 
based health care services, which would be part of the 
School Based Health Pilot Project, would be eligible for 
reimbursement from Medi-Cal 2 and Temporaiy Aid to 
Needy Families (TANF) funds. 

4. Ms. Alvarez-R,odriguez reports that Galileo and Lincoln 
High Schools would purchase health services, which are 
currently provided by DPH or SFUSD, either directly or 
through contracts with community -based organizations, 
for their students. DCYF would allocate $550,000 in 
subject funds to the SFUSD Department of School Health 
Programs to be used by Lincoln and Galileo High Schools 
($275,000 per high school). The Department of School 
Health Programs would be responsible for reimbursing 
each of the two high schools for their expenditures for 
health services under the pilot program. 

5. Ms. Alvarez-Rodriguez states that the School Health 
Promotion Committee at each high school would 
determine and coordinate which health services were to 
be provided to meet the needs of students at each school. 
The SFUSD Department of School Health Programs, in 
conjunction with the Citywide School Health Planning 
Committee, would be responsible for monitoring the 
expenditures and delivery of services. The Steering 
Committee, which includes Depury Director of DPH 
James Loyce, SFUSD Interim Superintendent Linda 
Davis, and Director of DCYF Deborah Alvarez-Rodriguez, 
would oversee the program. 

6. According to Ms. Alvarez-Rodriguez, DCYF has an 
existing program with SFUSD, the Healthy Start 
Program, which provides health services to middle school 
students. Ms. Alvarez-R.odriguez states that DCYF 
allocated $225,000 to SFUSD Department of School 
Health Programs in FY 1999-2000 to provide similar 
services in the middle schools. Ms. Alvarez-Rodricruez 



2 Ms. Alvarez-Rodriguez states that Washington High School (which is not part of the pilot program) 
currently bills Medi-Cal for 70 percent of mental health services provided to students and that the 
remaining 30 percent comes from General Fund monies. Additionally, Ms. Alvarez-Rodriguez states 
that DPH has estimated that Galileo High School, which is part of the pilot program, could receive 
approximately 10 to 15 percent reimbursement from Medi-Cal for providing mental health services 
to students. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

states that DCYF would modify its existing contract with 
SFUSD to provide the health services for the School 
Based Health Pilot Program. 

7. Ms. Alvarez-Rodriguez states that, because Lincoln and 
Galileo High Schools would be reimbursed by the 
Department of School Health Programs for School Based 
Health Pilot Program services to students when such 
services are provided, DCYF does not have a detailed 
budget for the School Based Health Pilot Program. 

Recommendation: Approval of the release of reserved funds is a policy 

matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

Januaiy 12. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 7 -File 99-2311 



Department: 
Item: 

Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Department of Real Estate (DRE) 

Resolution authorizing a new lease at 30 Van Ness 
Avenue for the Department of Public Health's Children, 
Youth and Families Section. 

30 Van Ness Avenue, second floor 

To provide space for the DPH's Children, Youth and 
Families Section. 



Lessor: 
Lessee: 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Cost: 

Utilities and 
Janitorial Service: 

Term of Lease: 

Right of Renewal: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Herbst Foundation 

The City and County of San Francisco, acting by and 
through the DPH. 



19,688 square feet at a monthly rental rate of $44,325 
(approximately $2.25 per square foot). 

$531,900 



Provided by Lessor. 

March 1, 2000 to February 28, 2005 (five years) 

Two options of five years each to extend the term of the 
lease. The first option to extend would adjust the rent for 
cost of living. The second option to extend would increase 
the rent to fair market value. 

$177,300 within the existing FY 1999-2000 DPH budget 
(four months, March to June of 2000, at $44,325 rent per 
month). The amount of $177,300 comprises (a) $5,319 in 
Federal grant funds, (b) $56,736 in State grant funds, and 
(c) $115,245 in General Fund monies. 

The proposed resolution would authorize a new five year 
lease of 19.688 square feet of space at 30 Van Ness 
Avenue from the Herbst Foundation. This space would 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

accommodate the DPH's Children, Youth and Families 
Section. 

Comments: 1. The 107 employees that staff the DPH's Children. 

Youth and Families Section are currently located in 
12.750 square feet of the Sobel Building, 680 8 :h Street, 
on a month-to-month holdover tenancy following the DPH 
lease's expiration on May 31, 1998. According to Mr. 
Charles Dunn of the DRE, the lease has been on a month- 
to-month basis since June 1, 1998 because of (a) lengthy 
negotiations which ultimately did not materialize in 
obtaining space for various DPH divisions at 1890 Bryant 
Street, and (b) difficulty in locating affordable space at 
alternative rental locations. 

2. Prior to the lease's expiration, the monthly rental rate 
was $22,700. For the 20 months between June of 1998 
and January of 2000, the monthly rent increased to 
$33,150. According to Mr. Dunn, for the two months of 
February and March of 2000, the monthly rent would 
increase to $44,625, and effective April 1, 2000, the 
monthly rent is to increase to $66,937.50. Mr. Dunn 
states that the monthly rent of $66,937.50 represents fair 
market value for office space in the South of Market areas 
known as "Media Gulch" which is currently experiencing 
significant rent increases. 

3. Under the proposed lease, the 107 employees of the 
DPrTs Children, Youth and Families Section would be 
located in 19,688 square feet of space at 30 Van Ness 
Avenue. The new location would provide DPH with 6,938 
square feet more than the current Sobel Building space of 
12,750 square feet. This would increase the average 
square feet per employee from approximately 119 to 184. 
or an increase of 65 square feet per employee. The 
attached memorandum, provided by Ms. Judy Schutzman 
of the DPH. explains why the DPH needs the additional 
space. 

4. The Lessor, the Herbst Foundation, would provide, at 
no cost to the City, tenant improvements pursuant to the 
DPrTs specifications up to a maximum cost of $472. S00. 
Completion of these improvements would be expected by 
March 1, 2000. Ms. Schutzman states that the DPH 
would be responsible for any additional tenant 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET^ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



improvement costs related to signage and window 
coverings. The costs of these additional tenant 
improvement costs, estimated not to exceed S20.000. 
would be met from within DPH's FY 1999-2000 budget, 
according to Ms. Schutzman. 

5. The proposed lease provides for a monthly rent of 
$44,325 for its five year term commencing March 1, 2000. 
This proposed rent is 511,175 more than the current rent 
charged to DPH of S33,150. However, the proposed 
monthly rent of $44,325 is $22,612.50 less than the 
866,937.50 monthly rental rate which would be charged 
for the existing space at the Sobel Building effective April 
1, 2000. Mr. Dunn states that the proposed monthly 
rental rate of $44,325 represents fair market value. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



r4is-2ES-3405 




City and County of San Francisco 
Department of Public Health 
Population Health and Prevention 



Attachment 

1380 Howard Street, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94103-2614 

(415)255-3405 FAX (415)252-3015 



MEMORANDUM 



Date: December 29, 1999 

To: Alan Gibson 

Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst 

From: Judy Schutzman 

Population Health and Prevention 



Subject: File #99-2311 



Please correct the current square footage I supplied you in my previous memo. The 
correct figure is 12,750. For 107 staff this translates to 119 square feet per person. The 
increase in square feet per person is 65 

In addition to relieving general overcrowding, the expanded space is needed to provide: 

1 . Private space for eligibility workers who must conduct confidential interviews At 
present, this staff shares a small, open office 

2. Storage for active, confidential medical records in accordance with State 
requirements. Management has been notified that current storage does not provide 
sufficient security. 

3. Space for the development and storage of posters, brochures, and other educational 
materials provided to the public. 

4. Meeting space for public information presentations. 

5. Secure storage for large quantities of WIC vouchers for distribution to clients 



24 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 8. 9 and 10 - Files 99-2301. 99-2302. and 99-2303 



Department: 



Airport 

Department of Real Estate (DRE) 



Item: 






File 99-2301 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Property to acquire 
four noise easements for four church facilities in the City 
of South San Francisco as part of the Airport's Aircraft 
Noise Insulation Proeram. 



File 99-2302 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Property to acquire 
195 noise easements from the owners of 195 properties in 
the Cities of Millbrae and South San Francisco as part of 
the Airport's Aircraft Noise Insulation Program. 

File 99-2303 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Resolution authorizing the conveyance of 26 quitclaim 
deeds to various property owners in San Mateo Count}- to 
rescind noise easements previously acquired by the 
Airport. 



$3,471,958, including $559,958 
$2,913,000 (File 99-2302) 

Airport Capital Projects 

Commercial Paper Fund 
FY 1999-2000 Airport budget 
TOTAL 



(File 99-2301) and 



$558,958 

2.913.000 

$3,471,958 



In 1992, the Airport entered into a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) with the five neighboring cities of 
Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, and South San 
Francisco to pay for a portion of the costs of insulating 
private residences in those cities against aircraft noise. 
The Airport has committed up to $120,000,000 to provide 
funds to the five cities which have signed the MOU with 
the Airport. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET .ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
provides funding, generally in the amount of 80 percent of 
the costs, to noise insulate private residences and other 
noise-sensitive facilities such as churches and schools 
within the 1995 Noise Exposure Map (NEM) area around 
the Airport. The 1995 NEM area is smaller than the area 
covered by the Airport's MOU with the five neighboring 
cities. For properties in the 1995 NEM area receiving 80 
percent FAA noise insulation funding, the Airport pays 
the remaining 20 percent of the insulation costs (as is 
proposed under File 99-2301). The Airport's 20 percent 
contributions are funded by the Airport's Capital Projects 
Commercial Paper Fund. 

For those private residences which are located outside the 
1995 NEM area eligible for FAA funding but which are 
located within the area covered by the Airport's MOU 
wuh the five neighboring cities, the Airport will 
contribute up to 100 percent of the noise insulation costs 
(as is proposed under File 99-2302). In these cases, the 
Airport contributes from its $120,000,000 fund. 

By providing funds to cover the costs of insulating 
residences and other facilities against Airport noise, the 
Airport can eliminate potential lawsuits through 
obtaining noise easements from the property owners 
which permit the Airport to conduct flight operations that 
would cause noise and vibration on the properties. 
According to the DRE, to date the Airport has acquired 
approximately 8,000 noise easements for properties 
located in the five MOU signatory cities. 

File 99-2301 

Approval of this proposed resolution would authorize the 
Airport to acquire four noise easements from (a) St. 
Veronica's Catholic Rectory, Church, and Parish Hall, (b) 
St. Veronica's Convent and School, (c) New Covenant 
Presbyterian Church, and (d) Alta Vista Church of Christ. 
all of which are located in South San Francisco. These 
noise easements would remain in effect for 20 years. The 
total estimated insulation costs are $2. 239. 651. As these 
church facilities are located within the 1995 NEM area. 
South San Francisco will receive a FAA grant of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

$1,680,693 (approximately 75 percent) and the Airport 
would provide funding of S558,958 (approximately 25 
percent). According to Ms. Sally Osaki of the Airport, the 
Cit}* will contribute 25 percent, rather than the customary 
20 percent, of the funding because of the unexpectedly 
high costs of insulating these church facilities. Ms. Osaki 
states that the City of South San Francisco submitted a 
FAA grant application based on preliminary costs which 
proved to be lower than the final estimate. In order to 
facilitate the insulation of the subject church facilities, the 
Airport agreed to make up the funding shortfall, 
according to Ms. Osaki. 

File 99-2302 

Approval of this proposed resolution would authorize the 
Airport to acquire up to 195 noise easements for 194 
residences in Millbrae and one residence in South San 
Francisco. Such easements would remain in force for a 
period of 20 years. 

File 99-2303 

Approval of this proposed resolution would permit 26 
property owners, from whom the Airport had previously 
acquired noise easements, to withdraw from the Aircraft 
Noise Insulation Program. The 26 subject properties are 
located in the four cities of Daly City, Millbrae, Pacifica, 
and San Bruno. Attachment I is a memorandum from 
Mr. John Panieri of the DRE explaining why the 26 
property owners want to withdraw from the Aircraft 
Noise Insulation Program. 

Comments: 1. Regarding File 99-2301, Ms. Osaki states that the 

Airport's estimated cost to acquire the noise easements 
from the four church facilities would not exceed $558,958, 
or 25 percent of the total insulation costs of $2,239,651. 
However, according to Ms. Osaki, since the FAA grant 
funds will not be paid to the City of South San Francisco 
until after completion of the noise insulation project, the 
Airport has agreed to advance South San Francisco the 
total cost of $2,239,651 to expedite completion of this 
project. South San Francisco will then reimburse the 
Airport its 75 percent share of $2,239,651 upon receipt of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

Januarv 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



the FAA grant funds. Ms. Osaki states that the Airport 
anticipates advancing the funds to the South San 
Francisco in late January or February of 2000 and will 
require repayment from South San Francisco by 
December 31, 2000, approximately 11 months later. The 
Budget Analyst estimates that the interest cost to the 
Aii-port as a result of advancing the additional SI. 680, 693 
funds to South San Francisco for an 11 month period 
would be approximately $90,897 based on the December 
1999 Treasurer's pooled interest earnings rate of 5.9 
percent. 

2. Regarding File 99-2302 which would permit the 
Airport to acquire noise easements from the owners of 195 
properties in the Cities of Millbrae and South San 
Francisco, Ms. Osaki states that the Airport would be 
liable for costs of up to $2,913,000. The amount of 
$2,913,000 comprises: 

(a) $2,910,000 (194 x $15,000) for full funding of noise 
insulation of 194 private residences in Millbrae 
which are not eligible for FAA funding because, 
although they are located within the area covered by 
the Airport's MOU with the five neighboring cities, 
they are located outside the 1995 NEM area eligible 
for FAA funding; and 

(b) $3,000 (20% of $15,000) for 20 percent funding of one 
private residence in South San Francisco which is 
eligible for FAA funding because it is located within 
the 1995 NEM area eligible for such FAA funding. 

3. Regarding File 99-2303 which would permit 26 
property owners, from whom the Airport had previously 
acquired noise easements, to withdraw from the Aircraft 
Noise Insulation Program, Ms. Osaki states that the 
Airport has already paid up to $390,000 to Daly City. 
Millbrae, Pacifica, and San Bruno. This represents up to 
$15,000 for each of the 26 residences whose owners now 
wish to withdraw from the Aircraft Noise Insulation 
Program. Attachment II is a memorandum from Ms. 
Osaki addressing the reimbursement of such funds to the 
Airport. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



4. Ms. Paula Jesson of the City Attorney's Office advises 
that the proposed quitclaim deeds under File 99-2303, 
which would rescind the noise easements purchased by 
the Airport from 26 property owners, would create no new 
legal exposure for the Airport because the owners of the 
properties in question have voluntarily declined to 
participate in the publicly funded Aircraft Noise 
Insulation Program. The Airport will still have complied 
with State airport noise regulations by virtue of having 
offered noise insulation to these owners, according to Ms. 
Jesson. 

5. The City Attorney's Office has previously reported that 
the purchase of noise easements enables the City to 
comply with State legal requirements and should result in 
eliminating costs to defend against noise-related lawsuits. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolutions. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



City and County of San Francisco 




■•'. t tac'r.-.er.t I 

Real Estate Division 
Administrative Services Department 



MEMORANDUM 

January 4, 2000 



TO: Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 

FROM: Harry J. Quinn 

Assistant Director of Property 

SUBJECT: Resolution authorizing conveyance of 26 quitclaim deeds 
to property owners in San Mateo County to rescind grants 
of noise easements previously acquired. 



In conversation between Allan Gibson of your staff and John Panieri of this department, the 
following is a summary of the most common reasons, based on our understanding, that property 
owners have given for wanting to withdraw from the noise insulation program: 

1. Owners want to sell the uninsulated home and not commit a potential buyer to the rights 

that are granted to the .Airport under the easement; 

2. Owners want to withdraw from the program because some aspect of the planned 

insulation fails to meet their perceived expectations, and 

3. Owners do not want to pay for additional structural repairs that are not covered under the 

MOU programs, i.e., dry wood rot damage to be corrected before installation of 
acoustical windows and doors. 

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call John Panieri at 554-9864. 



cc: Allan Gibson, Budget Analyst 



(41 5) 554-^8'5QRSVJPANlERJ\N$eE$mnlRescsn: doc 

FAX: (415) 552-9216 



Office of the Director of Property 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 
30 



San Francisco, 94102 



Attachment II 



SFO 



San Francisco International Airport 



January 4, 2000 



P.O. Box K0S7 

San Francisco. CA ?<i2e 

Tel 650.794.S00O 

Fan 6S0.7GX. 5005 

www.flysfo.com 



City AND COUNTY 



AJan Gibson 

Budget Analyst's Office 

1390Market'street 

Suite 1025 

San Francisco, CA 94102 



AIRPORT 

"-'».o. File 99-2303 



Dear Mr. Gibson: 



mayo* Advances previously disbursed for quitclaim deeds are reimbursed to the Airport 
enry t seaman through adjustments made in subsequent advances paid to the cities. 



LiRRT MA220LA 
VIZI "ICSIDCNT 



VOA V CRAYTON 



Very truly yours, 

Sally Osaki 

Sr. Administrative AnaJvst 



JOHN L. MARTIN 
AltrOHT nitfZTO* 



31 



: f. r ' : r • a / 7 o : £ 



cr^-.-.vtc 



: ~ R Z f;f rco c r : r - n rrr . <■' ■ 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 11 -File 99-2309 



Department: 
Item: 



District Attorney 

resolution concurring with the Controller's certification 
that assistance to certain victims of crime and education 
in community anti-street violence can continue to be 
practically performed for the District Attorney's Victim 
Witness Assistance Program by a private contractor for a 
lower cost than similar work services performed by City 
employees. 



Services to be 
Performed: 



Victim Witness Services for the District Attorney's Victim 
Witness Assistance Program 



Description: 



Victim Witness Services for the District Attorney's Victim 
Witness Assistance Program consist of helping lesbian, 
gay, bisexual, and transgender victims and witnesses to 
cooperate with the criminal justice system in 
prosecutions. 

Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may 
contract with private firms for services which can be 
practically performed for a lower cost than similar work 
performed by City employees. 

The Controller has determined that contracting Victim 
Witness Services for FY 1999-2000 would result in 
estimated savings as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 





Lowest 


Highest 




Salarv 


Salarv 


Citv-Onerated Service Costs 


Step 


Step 


Salaries 


$110,637 


$131,231 


Fringe Benefits 


26.332 


29.569 


Total 


$136,969 


$160,800 


Contractual Services Cost 


(92.745) 


(94. 026^ 


Estimated Savings 


$44,224 


$66 



1. A contract for Victim Witness Services was first 
certified under Proposition J as required by Charter 
Section 10.104 in 1981 and such services have been 
provided by an outside contractor, Communitv United 
Against Violence (CUAV), a non-profit corporation, since 
that time. Ms. Tricia Stapleton of the District Attorney's 
Office advises that Victim Witness Services are provided 
on a sole-source basis by CUAV. According to Ms. 
Stapleton, since 1981 CUAV has been the sole provider of 
(a) assistance to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
victims of crime and (b) hate-crime prevention sen-ices, 
and is therefore uniquely qualified to provide such 
services. 



2. The Contractual Services Cost used for the purpose of 
the analysis is based on (a) CUAVs estimated FY 1999- 
2000 costs to provide victim witness sen-ices, and (b) the 
salary and fringe benefits of 0.1 FTE S131 Victim Witness 
Investigator II position in the District Attorney's Office to 
monitor the contract. 

3. The FY 1998-99 contract with CUAV to provide Victim 
Witness Services expired on June 30. 1999. The renewed 
one-yeir contract with CUAV commenced on Julv 1, 1999. 
Therefore, the proposed resolution should be amended to 
provide for retroactivity. According to Ms. Stapleton. 
delays in processing the contract resulted in a delay in 
bringing the proposed resolution to the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



4. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire, with the 
responses from the District Attorney's Office, is attached. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed r2solution for retroactivity and 

approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Attachment 
CHARTER 10.104.15 (PROPOSITION J) QUESTIONNAIRE 

DEPARTMENT: D istrict Attorney 

CONTRACT SERVICES: Community United Against Violence 
CONTRACT PERIOD: 7/1/99 - 6/30/00 



(1 ) Who performed the activity/service prior to contracting out 7 

The services were not provided prior to contracting out with CUAV. 

(2) How many City employees were laid off as a result of contracting out? 
None. 

(3) Explain the disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 

The services were not provided by the City of San Francisc. .rial 

contract with CUAV; therefore, City employees have never beer. ir.\ . . the 

(4) What percentage of City employees' time is spent of services to be contracted out? 
None . 

(5) How long have the services been contracted out 7 Is this likely to be a one-time or an ongoing 
request for contracting out? 

Services have been contracted out since 7/1/81; the request will lil 
be on-goir.g. 

(5) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification'' Has it been certified*for each 
subsequent year? 
1981-32. Yes. 

(7) How will the services meet the goals of your M3EW3E Action Plan 7 

CUAV has established goals of hiring minority and women employees. 

(8) Does the proposed contract require that the contractor provide health insurance for its employees? 
Even if not reauired. are health benefits provided 7 

CUAV provides health insurance for its employees. 

(9) Does the proposed contractor provioe benefits to employees witn spouses 7 If so, are the sa~~ 
benefits provided to employees with domestic partners? If not. how does the prcpcsec contractor 
comply with the Drjmestic Partners ordinance? 

Dependent coverage includes coverage for domestic ps.rtr.ers. 

Department Representative: "-■;--• a ^^i=-nn. P-:--:rtor : :" ?7 TA Victin Services 
Telephone Number: 553-90^ 



35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 12 - File 99-2259 

1. This is a hearing to consider the Fiscal Year 1998-99 Comprehensive Annual 
Financial Report (CAFR) which presents the results of the City's annual financial 
audit. The FY 1998-99 CAFR was issued by the Controller on November 30, 1999. 
In an accompanying memorandum to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, the 
Controller stated that the City's General Fund finished FY 1998-99 with a budget 
surplus of $126,357,000, or $19,537,000 more than the $106,820,000 estimated 
surplus that was used as a revenue source to fund the FY 1999-2000 General Fund 
budget. The Controller reported that of the $19,537,000 in additional surplus, 
$8,700,000 represents advance payments of FY 1999-2000 revenues from the Bank 
of America settlement, and $10,837,000 represents new funds resulting from 
increased revenues and expenditure savings. The approximately $8,700,000 for the 
Bank of America settlement has been specifically appropriated in the FY 1999-2000 
budget. Therefore, the total FY 1998-99 surplus used as a source of revenue to fund 
the FY 1999-2000 budget was $115,520,000 ($106,820,000 estimated surplus plus 
$8,700,000 from the Bank of America settlement). 

2. According to the Controller's November 30, 1999 memorandum, the 
$126,357,000 General Fund surplus resulted from the receipt of $79,300,000 more 
in revenues than budgeted for FY 1998-99, expenditure savings of approximately 
$17,000,000 and $30,000,000 from a combination of surplus from prior year's 
revenues offset by additions to City reserves designated by the Controller. 
Attachment 1, provided by the Controller, is a letter discussing the General Fund 
surplus with accompanying revenue and expenditure comparison tables. 

3. Attachment 2 presents an analysis of the General Fund balance as of June 
30, 1999 and June 30, 1998 based on information presented in the respective 
Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. The June 30, 1999 total General Fund 
balance is $361,008,000. This total General Fund balance includes reservations 1 of 
$205,138,000, designations 2 of $29,513,000 and an unreserved fund balance 
available for appropriation of $126,357,000. As previously noted, $106,820,000 of 
the unreserved fund balance was appropriated as a revenue source to fund the FY" 
1999-2000 budget, leaving $19,537,000 as surplus funds available for appropriation. 
As noted above, the Controller also reported that of the $19,537,000 in additional 
General Fund monies, $8,700,000 represents advance payments of FY 1999-2000 
revenues from the Bank of America settlement that has already been appropriated 
in the FY 1999-2000 budget. Therefore, the new funds available for appropriation 
amount to $10,837,000. This $10,837,000 is in addition to the $28,500,000 General 
Fund Reserve originally included in the FY 1999-2000 budget. 



1 Reservations of fund balances indicate that portion of fund equity which is not available for 
appropriation for expenditure or is legally segregated for a specific future use. 

2 Designations of fund balances indicate that portion of fund equity that is not available for 
appropriation based on management's plans for future use of the funds. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 12, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 

4. Attachment 2 also provides fund balance data for FY 1997-98. The June 30, 
1999 General Fund balance was $346,358,000. This total fund balance includes 
reservations of $176,289,000, designations of $24,737,000 and an unreserved fund 
balance available for appropriation of $145,332,000. Of the total unreserved fund 
balance, $101,900,000 was appropriated as a source of funds for the FY" 1998-99 
budget, leaving $43,432,000 as surplus funds available for appropriation. The 
$43,432,000 was in addition to the General Fund Reserve of $25,000,000 originally 
included in the FY 1998-99 budget. 

5. The use of any surplus funds, either funds originally included in the General 
Fund Reserve after adoption of the final FY' 1999-2000 budget ($28,500,000) or the 
additional $10,837,000 in surplus funds identified in the CAFR, would be subject to 
appropriation approval by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Matthew 
Hymel, Mayor's Director of Finance, states that it is the policy of the Mayor to 
preserve and retain the City's existing General Fund Reserve, including t he- 
additional available $10,837,000 in surplus funds, for uncertainties in the current 
Fiscal Year and as a revenue source to fund the City's forthcoming FY* 2000-2001 
budget. 




*7?,/ 



-X 



Harvev M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supex-visor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Jtirl 




Attachment 1 
Pape 1 of 3 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER 

Edward Harrington 
Controller 



Januarv 6. 1999 



Supervisor Leiand Yee 

City and County of San Francisco 

City Hall. Room 260 

#1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 



Dear Supervisor Yee: 

In connection with your request for a hearing on the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (C.AFR) 
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1999. we are providing you with information regarding the budget surplus. 

FY 1998-1999 Projections Recap 

To show you the history of our projections on the 1998-1999 surplus, here is information that we have provided 
during the course of the year: 

Projected Surplus 

Six month report S 86.0 million 

Nine month report S100.9 million 

Amount included in 1999-2000 budget SI 15.5 million 

CAFR S126.4 million 

During the course of the year, we revise our projections as additional information becomes available. 

FY 1998-1999 Surplus Summary 

As noted above, the City ended the fiscal year with a surplus of $126 million. This surplus was comprised of 
the following: 

Beginning additional surplus from FY 1997-98 S 43 million 

Excess revenues 79 million 

Expenditures savings 17 million 

Increase in reserves (13) million 

Ending surplus FY 1998-1999 S_L2_6_ million 

We began the year with a S43 million surplus after the close of the fiscal year ended June 30, 1998. This 
surplus was primarily related to revenues that were stronger than budgeted during th" 1997-1998 fiscal year. 



38 

415-554-7500 Cits Hall • Room .116- U 1 Dr. Carllon B. Cooillrll Place • San Francisco CA °4IO:-4604 FAX 415-554>7S6< 



Supervisor Leland Yee Attachment 1 

CAFR Surplus * a ? e l 

January 6, 2000 

Pace 2 



1999 Revenue Detail 

In FY 1998-1999, General Fund revenues exceeded budget by S79 million. The following table indicates the 
amount by which major taxes and other revenues differed from the budgeted amount by year-end (in millions of 

dollars): 



Revenue Source 


Budcet 


Actual 


Difference 


Property tax 


S346.0 


S370.6 


S24.6 


Business tax 


231.3 


229.2 


(2.1) 


Sales tax 


114.1 


116.8 


2.6 


Utility tax 


56.1 


58.9 


2.7 


Property transfer 


42.3 


56.1 


13.8 


Motor vehicle in lieu 


76.3 


81.3 


5.0 


Realignment 


155.9 


162.1 


6.2 


Other revenues 


0.3 


17.9 


17.6 


Fines & penalties 


4.9 


13.6 


8.7 


Total 


si.e::: 


Sl.KKO 


S79.3 



Other revenues include a SI 7.6 million one-time recovery of property taxes that were allocated to the 
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in prior years. Fines and penalties include the S8.7 million 
settlement of the Bank of America lawsuit. Overall, general fund revenues were 7.7% higher than originally 
budgeted. A more detailed explanation of the revenue surpluses is provided in Attachment A. 

1999 Expense Detail 

The following table shows how the expenditure savings of SI 7 million were derived. The C.AFR details savings 
by department (see Attachment B). To show "true" savings, we have reduced the total reported savings in the 
C.AFR by the amounts shown for the Departments of Public Health and Human Services. For these 
departments, the majority of the variance between the revised budget and actual expenditures pertains to lower 
than anticipated grant funded expenditures for which there is a corresponding decrease in the reimbursement 
from federal and/or state programs. We remove these "savings" from the calculation since they do not provide 
any additional funds which are available for use by the City. We have added back the portion of the 
expenditure savings which pertains to activities of these departments which are not related to federal and or 
state grant programs in order to derive the net General Fund expenditure savings. 

General Fund Expenditure Variance 

(Revised Budget less Actual Expenditures) S ~2.3 million (See Attachment B) 
Less departmental variance: 

Community Health Network (3.4) million 

Public Health (17.4) million 

Department of Human Services (39.7) million 
Add back non-grant related Health and Human 

Services expenditure savings 5.2 million 

Net General Fund Expenditure Savings S17.0 million 



39 



Supervisor Leland Yee Attachment 1 

CAFR Surplus Pa ? e 3 of 8 

January 6, 2000 
Pase 3 



1999 Reserves Detail 

The increase in reserves pertain to the following: 

Cash reserve required by the City's Charter S 5.8 million 

Salary reserve 4.8 million 

Reserve for budget incentive program 2.7 million 

Reserve for litigation 1.8 million 

Reserve for one-time expenditures (1.0) million 

Reserve for other contingencies (0.4) million 

Net change in reserves S13.7 million 

These reserves are in accordance with the City's Charter, Administrative Code, Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance, or other legally binding agreements. The adjustments were based on the latest information available 
at the time of the year-end close. 

Reconciliation of FY 1999-2000 budget numbers to final surplus amounts 

When the FY 1999-2000 budget was prepared, we projected there would be a S106.8 million surplus from the 
prior fiscal year (FY 1998-1999). When we completed the year-end audit, the surplus was S126.4 million. The 
following table shows the change in the surplus: 

Surplus noted in 1999-2000 budget SI 06.8 million 

Bank of America settlement 8/7 million 

Amount included in 1999-2000 budget SI 1 5.5 million 

Other revenues 7.8 million 

Expenditure savings 3.1 million 

Surplus at time of CAFR S126.4 million 

The Bank of America settlement was not originally included in the surplus for FY 1998-1999, but rather was 
included in the revenue budget for FY 1999-2000. However, the settlement was received early and we were 
required to recognize the revenue in FY 1998-1999 for financial statement purposes. Therefore, the true 
difference between the surplus projected at the time the FY 1999-2000 Budget was prepared and the ending 
surplus is SI 0.9 million. This amount will go to the General Fund surplus. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact my office. 
Very truly yours, 




Ed Harringt« 
Controller 



cc: ^" Harvey Rose 

Supervisor Tom Ammiano, Finance Committee 
Supervisor Sue Bierman, Finance Committee 

Attachments 



40 



Attachment I 
Pace A of 8 



ATTACHMENT A 

SCHEDULE OF MAJOR BUDGETED AND FINAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 

Fiscal Yea- EnOmg June 30 1999 

(In thousands) 



GENERAL FUND 



ACTUAL 
FYS7-98 



ORIGINAL 
BUDGET 



FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 



REVISED 
BUDGET 



9 MONTH 
PROJECTION 



YEAR-END 
FINAL 



VARIANCE 
Final/Sudaet 



VARIANCE 
Fir.al'9 month 



PROPERTY TAXES 



2.729 (1) 



BUSINESS TAXES: 
Business Registration Tax 
Gross Receipts Tax 
Payroll Tax 
Total Business Taxes 



10.105 
30 662 
1B2 136 

222.904 



10628 
30 608 

190.027 
231.263 



10628 
30 608 

190 027 



231. 263 



10.347 
33042 



10.160 
30.168 
186 643 



229.171 



(468) 

(440) 

(1.184) 



(2.092) 



(187) 
(2 874) 



OTHER LOCAL TAXES: 
Sales Tax 
Utility Users Tax 
Real Property Transfer Tax 
Total Other Local Taxes 



112.950 


114 135 


56 604 


56 087 


it 007 


42 350 



114.125 
55.087 

42 350 
212.572 



115606 
55 485 
54 000 



225.091 



116 760 
58 907 

56 133 
231.800 



2.625 

2.820 

13.783 



19.228 



" 154 (3j 
2 133 (5) 



6.709 



FINES. FORFEITURES & PENALTIES 



4.922 



- Hi t 



STATE SUBVENTIONS: 
Health £ Welfare Realignment 
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu - County 
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu • City 
Total State Subventions 



152.375 


155 900 


155 900 


155.900 


162 057 


6.157 


6 157 (7) 


42.592 


43.402 


43.402 


44 338 


46.057 


2.655 


1.719 (8) 


32 529 


32 890 


32.890 


33 958 


25 230 


2.340 





OTHER REVENUES 
TOTAL REVENUES 



Controller's Office 



January 6. 2000 



41 



Attachment 1 
PigiT^FT 



ATTACHMENT A 
CHANGES BETWEEN BUDGETED AND ACTUAL REVENUES 



( 1 ) Final property taxes were greater than budget by $24.6 million (7. 1 %). The 
overall increase is due to an increase in assessed property value over the 1997 
roll. At the tine the budget was prepared, the Assessor projected a 4% increase in 
the 1998 roll, which was used for the budget projection. The Assessor's final roll 
was actually 9.2% higher than the prior year. In addition, the Assessor added 
another 1% to the 1998 roll through enrollment of escapes. The variance between 
the Controller's nine-month report and the year-end final (S2.7 million) was a 
result of the Assessor's collection of additional supplemental assessments. 

(2) Final business taxes were less than budget by $2.1 million (0.9%). While total 
business taxes increased 2.8% over prior-year revenues, a growth rate of 3.75% 
was needed to meet the budget estimate. In the nine-month report we projected 
business tax growth of 5.2%. This growth did not materialize because of a 
softening in overall business activities and because of substantial increase in 
business tax credits. According to the Tax Collector's office, the use of the new 
jobs credit increased by 42% in 1999. accounting for a $1.1 million decrease in 
business tax revenues. In addition, businesses claimed $3.9 million under the new 
business tax credit, which went into effect in 1999. 

(3) Sales taxes were greater than budget by $2.6 million (2.3%). In the nine-month 
report, we projected sales tax revenues would be 1 .3% greater than budget. The 
additional 1.0% increase is due to continued growth in City sales activity. 

(4) Utility users tax revenues were greater than budget by $2.8 million (5.0%). In the 
nine-month report, we projected a slight decrease in utility revenues because of 
deregulation in the electric utility industry and increased competition in the 
telephone industry. At year-end. we noted that the growth in cell-phone activities 
and telecommunications generally has caused telephone utility revenues to 
increase significantly. At the same time, we have not seen the anticipated 
decrease in electric rates (and therefore tax revenues) in the electric utility 
industry. 

(5) Real property transfer taxes were greater than budget by $13.8 million (32.5%). 
This figure reflects a continuing trend in the real estate market, punctuated by 
high property values and a large volume of sales transactions in the residential 
real estate market, as well as the sale of several high-priced commercial 
properties. In the nine-month report, we projected a slow-down in activities in the 
final quarter of the fiscal year: as a result, the final revenues were $.21 million 
more than projected in the nine-month report. The activities in real property 
transfers continue to outpace revenue projections in the current \ ear. 



Controller's Office Januaiy 6, 2000 



ATTACHMENT A 
(continued) 

(6) Fines and penalties were S8.7 million greater than budget. Under an agreement 
with the Attorney General's Office, San Francisco received a one-time 
distribution for its leadership role in the Bank of America litigation. This amount 
was in addition to reimbursement of the City Attorney's fees and related 
expenses. At the time the budget was prepared, we included this payment as a 
new revenue source in FY 1999-2000. However, the settlement was received 
early and we were required to recognize the revenue in FY1 998-99 for financial 
statement purposes. The amount included in the General Fund was S8.7 million. 

(7) Health and welfare realignment revenues were greater than budget by S6.2 million 
(3.9%). This state allocation is based on growth in sales tax revenues and motor 
vehicle license fees. Until the state makes its final allocation, we can only 
estimate the total revenues for each fiscal year. 

(8) Motor vehicle in lieu subventions from the state were greater than budget by S5.0 
million (6.5%). This increase in allocation from the state reflects a higher base 
from the prior year, upon which current-year allocations are based, and higher 
than anticipated growth in state-wide sales tax revenues. 

(9) Other revenues were $1 7.6 million greater than budget. This amount represents a 
one-time recover.- of property tax revenues that were allocated to the Educational 
Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in prior years. Based on an audit by the 
California State Controller, the City reduced the allocation to ERAF by Si 7.6 
million, which represents overpayments between 1993-94 and 1996-97. 



Controller's Office January 6, 2000 

43 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

GENERAL FUND 

Schedule of Expenditures by Department - 

Budget and Actual - Budget Basis 

Year ended June 30,1999 

(In Thousands) 



Attachment 1 
- y age / of 8 

Attachment B 



Public Protection 

Adult Probation S 

Animal Care and Control 

County Agriculture/Weights and Measures 

District Attorney 

Emergency Communications 

Environment 

Fire Department 

Juvenile Court 

Police Department 

Public Administrator/Guardian 

Public Defender 

Sheriff 

Trial Courts 

Public Works Transportation and Commerce 

Clean Water 

Parking and Traffic Commission 

Permit Appeals 

Public Works 

PUC Light, Heat and Power 

Telecommunications 

Human Welfare and Neighborhood Development 

Business and Economic Development 

Children, Youth and Their Families 

Commission on the Aging 

Commission on the Status of Women 

Human Rights Commission 

Mayor 

Social Services 

Community Health 

Community Health Network : , 

Public Health 

Medical Examiner/Coroner 

Culture and Recreation 

Academy of Sciences 

Administrative Services - Convention Facilities.... 

Art Commission 

Asian Art Museum 

County Education Office 

Fine Arts Museum 

Law Library 

Recreation and Park Commission 



Original 


Revised 






5udaet 


Budaet 


Actual 


Variance 


S 7.588 : 


5 7,581 


S 7.581 


S 


2.535 


2.458 


2,396 


62 


1.232 


1,173 


1.169 


4 


32,393 


31.433 


30,394 


1.039 


9.847 


5,718 


5.238 


480 


298 


335 


235 


101 


149.080 


153.457 


153,457 


- 


25.328 


25,680 


25.274 


406 


220.113 


216,949 


216.949 


- 


3.331 


3.352 


3.271 


81 


11.018 


10.994 


10.933 


61 


62.378 


67,081 


67.081 


- 


34.717 


33.992 


33.654 


338 


559.859 


550. 204 


557.632 
129 


2.572 


152 


152 


23 


31,754 


31.673 


31.136 


537 


315 


318 


313 


5 


22.636 


23,106 


23,106 


- 


4.871 


5.093 


4,287 


806 


5.300 


1.953 
52.295 


1.749 
60.720 


204 


55.028 


1 .575 


2.106 


1.514 


1.162 


352 


6.455 


2.288 


2.205 


83 


280 


- 


- 


- 


2,242 


2.032 


2.004 


28 


1.648 


1,365 


1,365 


- 


195 


195 


195 


- 


363.699 


371.184 


331.441 


39.743 (1) 


376.625 


378.578 


338.372 


40.206 


60.265 


60,686 


57.279 


3.407 (1) 


323.522 


329,249 


311.895 


17.354 (1) 


3.557 


3.763 
393.718 


3.618 


165 


367.344 


372.792 
1.736 


20.925 


1.690 


1,736 




4.884 


2.254 


2.254 


- 


5.290 


7.294 


4,982 


2.312 


1.683 


1.632 


1.618 


14 


1.721 


1.721 


1.715 


6 


4.917 


5.046 


5.046 


- 


263 


274 


274 


- 


65.255 


54.785 


63.911 


875 


85.704 


84.743 


81.536 


3.207 
(Continued) 



kk 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

GENERAL FUND 

Schedule of Expenditures by Department - 

Budget and Actual - Budget Basis - (Continued) 

Year ended June 30, 1999 

(In Thousands) 



Attachment 1 
Page 8 of 3 

Attachment 3 



General Administration and Finance 

Administrative Services 

Assessor 

Board of Supervisors 

City Attorney 

City Planning 

Civil Service 

Controller 

Elections Department 

Ethics Commission 

General City Responsibility" 

Human Resources 

Mayor 

Purchaser 

Real Estate 

Retirement Services 

Treasurer/Tax Collector 

Total General Fund 



Original 


Revised 






Budaet 


Budaet 


Actual 


Variance 


5.838 


3.513 


3.475 


37 


10.890 


10.163 


10.163 


- 


8.522 


8.405 


7,931 


474 


12.411 


11.533 


11.533 


- 


8,127 


8.232 


7.445 


787 


610 


657 


525 


132 


15.243 


16.350 


15.350 


- 


2.620 


2.800 


2,800 


- 


476 


497 


497 


- 


37.141 


53.263 


53.263 


- 


17.952 


15.960 


15.245 


715 


20.114 


19.839 


18.702 


1.137 


3.132 


3.258 


2.790 


468 


938 


1.942 


1.942 


- 


150 


176 


176 


- 


13.947 


13.876 


13.805 


71 


158.311 


170.474 


155.653 


3.821 


S 1.632.871 


S 1.650.012 


S 1.577.705 


S 72.307 



• Includes general claims liability and post retirement benefits. 



Notes: 

(1 ) The variance between the revised budget and actual expenditures pertains to lower than 
anticipated grant funded expenditures of the respective department for which there is a 
corresponding decrease in the reimbursement from federal and/or state programs 



45 



Attachment 2 page 1 of 3 



General Fund - Fund Balance Analysis 



(Amounts in thousands) 



Notes 



1998-99 


1997-98 


S 75.878 


S 70.032 


4,198 


4,198 


5,163 


4.978 


43,602 


49,707 


50,284 


40.253 


26.013 


7.121 


S 205,138 


S 176.289 



Reserve by charter for cash requirements 

Reserve for emergencies 

Reserved for assets not available for 

appropriation 
Reserved for encumbrances 
Reserved for appropriation carryforward 
Reserved for subsequent years' budgets 
Total reserved amounts 

Designated for litigation and other S 25,545 S 16,425 

contingencies 
Designated for one time expenditures 
Designated for net unrealized gain on 

investments 
Unreserved - available for appropriation 
Total unreserved amounts 



Fund Balance, June 30 - Budget basis 



2,912 




3.891 


1,056 




4,421 


126.357 




145.332 


$ 155,870 


S 


170,069 


S 361,008 


s 


346,358 



Notes 


Primaiy Components of reserve for subsequent years' 




1 




budgets 








Budget Incentive Program 


S 9,000 


S 5,600 




City investments 


15,000 






Reserve for nurses childcare 


1,100 


1.100 




Reserve for universal health 


500 




2 


Unreserved fund balance - available for 
appropriation 


S 126.357 


S 145.332 




Amount of unreserved fund balance- available 
for appropriation subsequently appropriated: 


106,820 


101.900 






Bank of America Settlement - appropriated in 


8.700 






the FY 1999-2000 budget 








Balance available for appropriation 


S 10.837 


S 43.432 



Source: 1997-98 and 1998-99 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 
46 



Attachment 2 page 2 of 3 
Explanation of Terms 



Reservations of Fund Equity 

Reservations of fund balances of the governmental fund types and the 
fiduciary fund type indicate that portion of fund equity which is not available 
for appropriation for expenditure or is legally segregated for a specific future 
use. Following is a brief description of the nature of certain reserves and 
other equity categories. 

Reserve by charter for cash requirements - The Charter provides for a cash 
requirements reserve to meet potential short-term working capital needs. 
The balance is calculated as 10% of either the prior year or the current year 
property tax levy. 

Reserve for emergencies - The City's Administrative Code provides for an 
emergency reserve fund for purposes of meeting any emergency as defined in 
the City's Charter. The amount reserved for emergencies may be 
appropriated only by a vote of three-fourths of the Board of Supervisors. 

Reserve for assets not available for appropriation - Certain assets, primarily 
cash and investments outside the City Treasury and deferred charges, do not 
represent expendable available financial resources. Therefore, a portion of 
fund equity is reserved to offset the balance of these assets. 

Reserve for encumbrances - Encumbrances are recorded as reservations of 
fund balances because they do not constitute expenditures or liabilities (note 
2(e)). In certain special revenue and capital projects funds, this accounting 
treatment results in a deficit unreserved fund balance. This deficiency is 
carried forward to the next fiscal year where it is applied against estimated 
revenues in the year the commitments are expended. 

Reserve for appropriation carryforward - At the end of the fiscal year, certain 
budgeted expenditures are authorized to be carried over and expended in the 
ensuing year. A reserve of fund equity is established in the amount of these 
budget authorizations. 

Reserve for subsequent years' budget - A portion of fund equity is reserved for 
subsequent years' budgets. This balance includes the reserve required by the 
City's Administrative Code for the budget incentive program for the purpose 
of making additional funds available for items and services that will improve 
the efficient operations of departments. Appropriations from this reserve will 
only be made to departments that have demonstrated their ability to reduce 
the cost of service delivery and other departmental activities during the 
previous fiscal year. 



Source: 1997-98 and 1998-99 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 
hi 



Attachment 2 page 3 of 3 



Designations of Fund Equity 

Designations of fund balances indicate that portion of fund equity that is not 
available for appropriation based on management's plans for future use of the 
funds. Following is a brief description of the nature of the designations as of 
June 30, 1999. 

Designations for litigation and other contingencies - This designation 
represents management's estimate of anticipated legal settlements or other 
contingencies to be paid in the subsequent fiscal year. 

Designation for extraordinary one-time expenditures - This designation 
represents the extraordinary revenue recognized in a prior year due to the 
implementation of an accounting pronouncement. Management has 
designated this amount to fund extraordinary expenditures which may arise 
in a subsequent fiscal year. 

Designation for net unrealized gain on investments - The designation for net 
unrealized gain on investments represents the net unrealized gain recognized 
as of June 30, 1999 on investments recorded at fair value. Management has 
established this designation because the revenue is not available for 
appropriation until or if toe gain is actually realized. 



SourccWT-SS and 1998-99 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 
48 



>.P5* 




City and County of §an Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 
, Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr Carlton B 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102^689 



Wednesday, January 19, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



Meeting Convened 



The meeting convened at 10:03 a.m. 



AGENDA CHANGES 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JAN 2 1 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



REGULAR AGENDA 



000007 [Appropriation for the 700 Pennsylvania facility to house MUNI staff and shops that provide 

power/special machine maintenance (previously performed at 24th and Utah site) to insure safe transit 
service for 700,000 daily riders] 

Ordinance appropriating $2,918,024 of Safe Harbor Lease Revenue to provide funds for the completion of the 
700 Pennsylvania facility capital project of the San Francisco Municipal Railways for fiscal year 1999-2000. 
(Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

12729/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose, Budget Analyst; Vince Harris, Deputy General Manager, 
Municipal Railway; Supervisor Yee; Robert Rincon, Municipal Railway. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 11:44 AM on 1/19/00 



finance and Labor Commitlei 



Meeting Hitiuta 



January 19, 2000 



000014 (Proposed expenditure of California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) funds for fiscal year 
1999-2000| 

Resolution authorizing adoption of the County Description of Proposed Expenditure of California Healthcare 
for Indigents Program (CHIP) funds for fiscal year 1999-2000 and that the President or duly authorized 
representative of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco can certify the County 
Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHIP funds for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Department of Public Health) 

12/28/')'). KH'LIVLD AND ASSIGNED to linance and I ahor Committee Department requests this item be calendared at the January 
19, 2000 meeting 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Jeffrey Leong, Department of Public Health 
RECOMMENDED by Che following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman. Ammiano 



000043 |Revised patient rates for home health services provided by Department of Public Health for fiscal year 
1999-2000| 

Ordinance amending Health Code by amending Section 128, to fix patient rates for services furnished by 
Department of Public Health, retroactively to December 1, 1999. (Department of Public Health) 
1/5/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to linance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Monique Zmuda, Department of Public Health 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000071 |Reserved Funds. Fire Department! 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Fire Department (Ordinance No. 127-96). in the amount of 
$52,000 to fund the planning and design for the repair of the ruptured Auxiliary Water Supply System 
(AWSS) main pipe at Mission and Mam Streets. (Fire Department) 
1/7/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Saed Toloui. Department of Public Works 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following \ole: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000067 (Appropriation to be used for various capital improvements as approved in the Airport's Master Plan 
including rail transit operating system and Five Year Capital Projects Plan| 
Ordinance appropriating S55.126.710 of interest income and various Bond fund balances to capital 
improvement projects at the Airport Commission for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller) 
1/10/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Jon Ballesteros. Airport 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at l<> 25 a m 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 11:44 AM on I 19 00 



0.Z& 



I /2O0O 



Sus an Horn 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 

_^ 1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
SAN FRANCISCO FAX (41 5) 252-0461 



JAN 1 9 2000 

N FRANCISC 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



January 13, 2000 
TO: finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: , Budget Analyst 
SUBJECT: January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 1 - File 00-0007 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Department of Public Transportation 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 
Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance of 
$2,918,024 of Safe Harbor Lease Revenue to 
provide funds for the completion of the 700 
Pennsylvania Facility Capital Project for the San 
Francisco Municipal Railway. 

$2,918,024 

Safe Harbor Lease Capital Revenue (See Comment 
No. 3) 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would 
fund an additional $2,918,024 to complete the San 
Francisco Municipal Railway's (MUNI) 700 
Pennsylvania Facility Rehabilitation Capital 
Project. This Facility Rehabilitation Capital Project 
includes: (1) renovating the entire facility to meet 
Building Code standards and seismic and disability 
access requirements; (2) removing asbestos 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

materials and lead-based paints; (3) replacing the 
roof; (4) replacing and upgrading the elevators, 
electrical, telecommunication and security systems; 
(5) rehabilitating the overhead cranes and (6) 
providing new furnishings and equipment. This 
Facility, which is currently under construction at 
700 Pennsylvania Street near the intersection of 
22 nd Street, will be a replacement MUNI-owned 
facility for the MUNI Ways and Structures 
Division, which was previously located at 24 th and 
Utah Streets and was displaced by the construction 
of the San Francisco General Hospital Parking 
Facility in 1994. 

Since then, the functions of the Ways and 
Structures Division have been primarily provided 
at the MUNI-owned facility at 1301 Cesar Chavez 
Street and at leased space at a cost of $50,000 
monthly ($600,000 annually) from the Port at Pier 
80. In addition, Ways and Structures Division 
functions have been provided at dispersed MUNI 
locations throughout the City (i.e., Potrero, Scott 
and Alameda Facilities) that will be consolidated at 
the 700 Pennsylvania location, when it is 
completed. The Ways and Structures Division is 
responsible for providing maintenance support for 
MUNI facilities, buildings and grounds (i.e.. 
gardeners, locksmiths, painters, plumbers, etc.) and 
for 47 miles of Light Rail Vehicle trackway, 
tunnels, the Cable Car system and the traction 
power and fixed electronic systems. 

Budget: Attachment I provided by Mr. Robert Rincon of 

MUNI identifies the initial project spending plan, 
the currently available funds and the revised 
project budget. The specific increases in the budget 
and the percentage changes by line item are 
identified and the reasons for the major increa 
are explained in the footnotes to Attachment I. As 
shown in Attachment I. the total revised budget is 
projected to increase by $2,918,024, or 14.4 percent 
from the currently available funds of $20,250,000 
to $23,168,024. Of the total projected increase of 
$2,918,024, $2,729,724, or 93 percent is related to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

the "construction" category as reflected in 
Attachment I. 

The Budget Analyst notes that project 
management, land acquisition and related costs of 
the existing 700 Pennsylvania Facility totaled 
$3,597,460, and that a total of $19,570,564 
($23,168,024 total anticipated costs less 
$3,597,460) is anticipated to be expended to 
rehabilitate the existing Facility. 

Attachment II summarizes the original and revised 
budgets and identifies the specific Federal, State 
and local sources of funds that are being used to 
finance the project. As shown in Attachment II, if 
the proposed supplemental appropriation is 
approved, the local financing will represent 
$12,775,626, ($9,857,602 previously approved plus 
$2,918,024 subject appropriation) or 55 percent of 
the total project costs of $23,168,024. The Budget 
Analyst notes that no General Funds have been 
used for this project. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Rincon, the main reason for the 

increased costs on the 700 Pennsylvania Project 
was due to a required accelerated design phase, 
which resulted in the original construction plans 
and specifications, that was developed by MUNI 
and the Department of Public Work's (DPW) 
Bureau of Architecture and Bureau of Engineering 
staff, lacking sufficient detail. As a result. (1) 
unanticipated additional work was required for the 
hazardous soil conditions, which included 
excavating and removing an additional 1,000 cubic 
yards of toxic soil left by the building's previous 
tenants; (2) unanticipated redesign and installation 
of a new drainage system was necessary; (3) 
unanticipated change in design and construction of 
the west exterior wall (abutting adjacent 
properties) had to be completed; and (4) all the 
related project management, construction 
engineering, construction inspection and DPW 
support costs increased commensurately with the 
above mentioned items. In addition. Mr. Rincon 
notes that (1) the final Department of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Telecommunications and Information Systems 
(DTIS) costs for furnishing and installing a Lucent 
PBX telephone system increased from an initial 
estimate of $85,000 to $270,000, an increase of 
$185,000; (2) no funds were originally included for 
MUNI staff to move and furnish the 700 
Pennsylvania Facility and now $100,000 is 
included; and (3) a contingency of $97,927 or less 
than one percent of the original construction costs 
of $12,490,000 was included. Mr. Rincon advises 
that contingency funding for a complex renovation 
project, such as the 700 Pennsylvania Facility 
Rehabilitation Project should have initially 
included a 20 to 25 percent contingency. The 
proposed increased costs of $2,918,024 represents 
23.4 percent of the original construction cost 
estimate of $12,490,000. 

2. Mr. Rincon reports that a competitive bid process 
was conducted by MUNI to select the contractor, 
Dennis J. Amoroso Construction Co. Inc., at a 
slightly revised bid cost of $12,490,000. As shown 
in Attachment III, three bidders submitted bids. 
According to Mr. Rincon, the apparent low bidder, 
S.J. Amoroso Construction Co. Inc. at $11,614,000 
was disqualified due to errors in their bid. 

3. Safe Harbor Leasing Capital Revenue is the 
source of funds for this subject supplemental 
appropriation. Mr. Mark Goldstein of the 
Department of Public Transportation advises that 
these local Safe Harbor Leasing Capital Revenue 
funds were made available to MUNI by leasing, 
rather than purchasing, the Boeing Light Rail 
Vehicles (LRVs), which are currently being retired 
from the fleet. Under the Safe Harbor Leasing 
Capital Revenue provisions, MUNI was able to 
receive a portion of Federal tax credits as revenues 
from this leasing arrangement. According to Mr. 
Goldstein, the current balance in the Safe Harbor 
Leasing Capital Revenue Fund is $5,868,170. [fthe 
proposed supplemental appropriation for 
$2,918,024 is approved, the remaining balance in 
this Fund will be $2,950,1 16. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



4. Mr. Rincon advises that construction on the 700 
Pennsylvania Rehabilitation Facility Project began 
in January of 1998 and was anticipated to be 
completed by July of 1999, a period of 
approximately 18 months. However, according to 
Mr. Rincon, due to numerous delays in the project, 
as a result of toxic and hazardous materials 
mitigation work and errors and omissions in the 
contract specifications, the Project is now 
anticipated to be completed in March of 2000, a 
total period of approximately 26 months, which is 
eight months, or 44 percent, later than originally 
estimated. 

5. According to Mr. Rincon, the Ways and 
Structures Division staff will move into the 
Rehabilitated Facility as soon as it is completed. 
Mr. Rincon advises that the MUNI-owned facility 
at 1301 Cesar Chavez Street will be converted for 
use as the Islais Creek Bus Maintenance Facility, 
after the Ways and Structures Division moves out. 
As indicated above, when the 700 Pennsylvania 
Rehabilitation Capital Project is completed, MUNI 
will also vacate the Port's Pier 80 facility, thus 
saving an estimated $600,000 annually for rent. 

6. Overall, the Budget Analyst notes that 
acquisition and rehabilitation of this one existing 
Facility is now estimated to cost $23,168,024. 
Based on the representations of Mr. Rincon, the 
Budget Analyst notes that the proposed increased 
cost- of S'2.918,024 occurred primarily because of 
the required accelerated design phase, which 
resulted in MUNI and DPW staffs insufficient 
construction plans and specifications, which 
contributed to additional unanticipated redesigns, 
construction work and delays. In addition, the 
increased costs resulted from DTIS significantly 
increasing their original estimate, and MUNI not 
identifying funds for relocating into this new 
facility and not including sufficient contingency 
funds at the beginning of the project. Therefore, the 
Budget Analyst notes that almost all of th 
increased costs are a result of City staff errors and 
omissions. Therefore, the Budget Analyst considers 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

approval of the proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance for an additional 
$2,918,024 to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance ih a policy 

matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



Project No. CPT 399 
















Pro|ect Title: 700 Pennsylvania Rehabilitation 














Public Transportation Commission Resolution No. 99-097 








Dec 


ember 7. 1999 


PROJECT i 






Initial 


Current 


Proposed 


Revised 


Percent 




Project Phase 


Cost Center Title 


Spending 
Plan 


Available 
Funds 


Funding 
Increase 


Project 
Funding 


Change in 

Funding/line 

item 


Percent of 

Total Project) 

Funding 


Conceptual Engineering 


















Project Mgt 


$34,333 


$31,395 


SO 


$31,395 


0% 


0.1% 




Land Acquisition 


S3.260.000 


S3. 268.528 


SO 


$3,268,528 


00% 


14.1% 




Dept Real Estate 


$20,000 


$20,248 


SO 


$20,248 


0% 


1% 




Consultant Svs 


$277,289 


$277,289 


SO 


$277,289 


0% 


1.2% 

I 


Subtotal 


$3,591,622 


$3,597,460 


SO 


$3,597,460 


0.0% 


15 5%l 


Detail Design 


















Project Mgt 


$77,895 


571.228 


$0 


$71,228 


0.0% 


0.3% 




Engineering Svs 


$992,593 


SI. 223. 973 


$0 


$1,223,973 


0% 


5.3% 




Construct Mgt 


$7,887 


$0 


so 


*\ 


0.0% 


0% 




Other Direct 


$92,065 


$42,065 


so 


S42.063 


0% 


0.2% 




BCEJEqulp/ADAJBOA 


$432,000 


$432,000 


so 


S432.000 I 


0.0% 


1.9% 




BCM Geotech/Survey 


$4a.ooo 


$48,000 


so 


S48.0od 


0.0% 


0.2%! 




Art Commission 


$62,501 


$64,500 


so 


S64.50CI 


0% 


o.3%: 




Crane Inspection 


$25,000 


$25,000 


so 


$25.00(3 


0% 


oi%| 


Subtotal 


$1,737,941 


SI. 906.766 


so 


51,906.766 


0.0V.I 


8.2V. I 


Construction 


















Project Mgt 


$117,965 


$117,965 


$17,422 


$135.3871 


14 8% 


6% 


' 


Engineering Svs 


5307.619 


$607,619 


$292,302 


5899.9211 


48 1% 


39%! 


' 


Construct Mgt 


$612,707 


$612,707 


$403,000 


$1,015.7071 


65.8% 


4.4% 


1 


BOA/BOE 


$202,040 


$355,286 


$111,000 


5484. 818j 


36.5% 


2.1% 




BCM-Test 4 SAR 


$118,030 


$118,030 


$0 


5118.03(3 


0% 


0.5%l 




SFWD 


$61,338 


$61,338 


$0 


561.338! 


0% 


0.3%l 


2 


SF0T1S 


$85,000 


SO 


$185,000 


5270.000 

S40.ooa 
s26o.ooa 


100 0% 


12%! 




Hetch Hetchy/PG&E 


S25.000 


S24.902 


S15.000 


60.6%l 


02%! 




Consultant SchJTestlng 


5180.000 


S260.000 


SO 


0%l 


1.1% 




Construction 


512.490.000 


$12,490,000 


$1,376,000 


S13.866.000 


1 1 0%l 


59 8%l 


' 


Moving, Furnishing & 
















Equipment 


5370.738 


sa 


$100. ood 


sioo.ooa 


100.0% 


0.4%! 




Contingency 


5600.000 


$97,927 


$230,000 I 


5224.2971 

1 


129.0% 


i o%: 


Subtotal 


515,170.437 


$14,745,774 


$2,729,724 | 


517,475.498 ! 


18.5V.; 


75.4% 


Project C'oseout 
















» 


Project Management 


SO 


so 


$34,000 


S34.000I 


100 0%! 


1%, 


» 


Project Engineering 


SO 


so 


$30,000 


S80,000| 


100 0%! 


0.3% 


' 


Project Integration 


50 


so 


$9,300 


S9.300I 


100 0%l 


o mt| 


i 


Construction Mngmt 


50 


SO 


$65,000 


S65.000I 


100 0%l 

I 


3%i 


Subtotal 


50 


SO 


S188.300 


5188.300 . 


100.0*.'. 


0.3% 
















CAPITAL TOTAL 


520,500,000 


520,250,000 


52.918.024 


$23,168,024 


13.0% 


100.0%; 



1. Increased labor cost associated with proiect schedule delays are the result of construction complexities and required design fixes Labor cctt 
include Muni. DPW-3ureau ol Architecture, and CPW-Sureau ol Engmeenng. Muni utilized DPWs services in design as well as construction 
support' 

2. SF Department ol Telecommunication Information Services preliminary estimates were significantly less costly than their final estimates 
Muni had to begin work, on this proiect prior to receiving final formal OTIS estimates, which significantly escalated beyond what DTIS ongmaily 
provided to Muni staff at the project's outset. These unanticipated additional costs are now included in this funding revision 

3. The project scope included relocating Muni personel from their current temporary locations to their new home at 700 Pennsylvania Street, 
providing cffice furnishing, and furnishing computer equipment. This line item was unfunded from the start of construction due to funding 
shortfall Currently, the scope of worV has teen reduced only to relocating personnel and providing minimal new furnishings 

4. Typically contingency funding lor a complex renab proiect ranges from 20% - 25% ol the tot3l cost ol construction The accelerated timeline 
for proiect completion precluded full funding from the proiect's inception Initially 5% (for contingency) was budgeted However, from me onset of 
the construction phase due to ongoing cost escalation related to design changes, less than 1% in actual contingency funding was available 
Cunng the construction phase. 

5. Lacor cost to closeout the construction contract As-built drawings, punchlist final contract modification. Public Transportation Commission 
approval etc 

7 



Attachment II 



PAGE 4 



PTC CALENDAR ITEM # 

DIVISION: Capital Programs 

PROJECT: Supplemental Appropriation -700 Penn. 



BASELINE 



REVISED BUDGET 



700 PENNSYLVANIA REHABILITATION 
PROJECT BUDGET AND FINANCIAL PLAN 

PROJECT BUDGET 



Category 



Total 



Category 



Total 



Federal 



FINANCIAL PLAN 



Budget 



Conceptual Engineering $791,000 

Detailed Design/City Services $2,984,000 
Site Purchase $3,275,000 
Construction Contract $12,489,264 
Moving, Furnishing & Equipment $360,736 

Contingency $600,000 



$20,500,000 



Budget 



Conceptual Engineering $308,684 

Project Mgt./Engineering/CM $3,534,516 

Other City Services / Consultants $1,832,930 

Site Purchase $3,288,776 

Construction Contract $13,866,000 

Moving, Furnishing & Equipment $100,000 

Contingency $237,118 



$23,168,024 



State 



Local 



Section 9 CA-90-X422 
Section 9 CA-90-X743-01 

State Highway Account 
State Transit Assistance 



SFMRIC No. 48 
SFMRIC No. 49 
1994-95 Sales Tax 
1997-98 Sales Tax 
Safe Harbor Lease Revenues 



$1,036,470 
$6,100,000 

$3,204,000 

$51,928 

$1,009,000 
$2,065,602 
$4,000,000 
$2,783,000 



$7,136,470 3 TV 

$3,255,928 14', 

$9,857,602 43 

$2,918,024 12 



Total 



$23,168,024 100'i 



Attachment III 



PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 

City and County of San Francisco 

Bid Opening Results 

Municipal Railway Contract No. MR-1171 
700 Pennsylvania Rehabilitation Ways & Structure Maintenance Facility 



Date Opened: 08/19/97 



Engineer's Estimate: S12.000, 000.00 



Bidder 
1 S.CT- A-hop-OSo co^^ti^ocdo^i Cjj jyj 



Amount 






$ IS, 581 , ooo. 0d 






q-0 6 dL& 



S^T/Z^S. 



Sf=- c^ 9 ^'J3 - <S~iz3 



r,?,^93, 8i^. 9 ' <P 



Amount Checked By: 



Contractina En; 



Approved By: 



Manager, Contracting Section 



cc: Peg Divine, Deputy Director 

Arnold Baker, Manager, Contract Compliance 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 2 - File 00-0014 

Department: 

Item: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Resolution authorizing the adoption of the County 
Description of Proposed Expenditure of California 
Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) funds for Fiscal 
Year 1999-2000, and authorizing the President, or duly 
authorized representative of the Board of Supervisors of 
the City and County of San Francisco to certify the 
County Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHIP 
funds for FY 1999-2000. 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



$4,865,429 

California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) 
Funds 



Description: 



The State Department of Health Services (DHS) 
established the California Healthcare for Indigents 
Program (CHIP) in 1989 to provide funds to the counties 
to pay for medical services for indigent persons, who are 
not eligible for other private or public health care 
programs. CHIP is funded by Proposition 99 (Tobacco 
Tax) money. The counties are able to use CHIP funds to 
reimburse both County and non-County providers for 
uncompensated services for indigent persons, who can not 
otherwise pay for the cost of such health services. 

CHIP funds are used to reimburse (a) participating 
County and non-County hospitals for inpatient, 
outpatient, and emergency services, and (b) participating 
private physicians for emergency, obstetric, and pediatric 
services, provided to indigent persons. 

State regulations require that the County submit to the 
State, on an annual basis, a description of the County's 
proposed expenditures of the CHIP funds, and thai the 
President of the Board of Supervisors, or duly authorized 
representative, certify the subject expenditure 
description. The proposed resolution would authorize the 
County Description of Proposed Expenditure of the 
subject CHIP funds for FY 1999-2000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Proposed 
Expenditures of 
CHIP Funds: 



The allocation of the CHIP funds for FY 1999-2000 is as 
follows: 



County Hospital Fund 
Non-County Hospital Fund 
Physician Services Fund 
Other Health Services Fund 
Total CHIP Funds 



$4,079,274 
249,224 
326,352 
210,579 

$4,865,429 



Comments: 



1. As shown in the Attachment, the CHIP allocation by 
each Fund noted above, is as follows: 



County Hospital Funds 

DPH has allocated $4,079,274 in County Hospital Funds 
for indigent services at San Francisco General Hospital 
(SFGH), including administrative costs, and the Child 
Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) services at 
SFGH. 



SFGH Services 

CHDP Services 

DPH Administrative Costs 

Total County Hospital Fund 



$3,573,875 

56,668 

448.731 

$4,079,274 



Non-Countv Hospital Fund 



DPH has allocated $249,224 to the Non-County Hospital 
Fund, including $124,612, or 50 percent, to 8 local non- 
County hospitals, based on the State's mandated formula, 
and $124,612, or 50 percent, to reimburse these local non- 
County hospitals on a discretionary basis. 



State-mandated Funds 

Discretionary Funds 
Hospital Reimbursement 
Professional Services Contract 
Subtotal Discretionary Funds 

Total Non-County Hospital Fund 



110,905 
13.707 



$124,612 



124.612 
$249,224 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



* Mr. Jeffrey Leong of DPH states that DPH has an 
existing professional services contract with Lifemark, 
Incorporated, to process medical claims for 
reimbursement from private hospitals and physicians. 

Physician Services Fund 

DPH has allocated $326,352 to the Physician Services 
Fund, including $163,176, or 50 percent, to Emergency 
Medical Services (EMS), and $163,176, or 50 percent for 
new contracts. 



Emergency Medical Services 






EMS 


$146,858 




Professional Services Contract 


16,318 




Subtotal EMS 




163,176 


New Contracts 






EMS 


26,724 




CHDP 


120,134 




Professional Services Contract 


16.318 




Subtotal New Contracts 




163.176 


Total Physician Services Fund 




$326,352 


Other Health Services Fund 







DPH has allocated $210,579 for other health services, 
including reimbursements for indigent services at SFGH 
and Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) 
services at SFGH, and administrative costs. 



SFGH 


$90. 155 


CHDP 


20.002 


DPH Administrative Costs 


2,979 


Professional Services Contract 


97.143 


Total Other Health Services Fund 


$210,579 



2. In August of 1999, the Board of Supervisors authorized 
DPH to accept and expend $4,860. 674 in CHIP funds (File 
99-1530). According to Mr. Leong, the final total State 
allocation is $4,865,429. the amount to be certified to the 
State under the proposed subject resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



3. The Board of Supervisors approved the total CHIP fund 
expenditure of $.7,961,916 in the DPH FY 1999-2000 
budget. The actual amount of $4,865,429 allocated by the 
State in FY 1999-2000 is $3,096,487, or approximately 39 
percent, less than the budgeted amount of $7,961,916. 
According to Ms. Anne Okubo of DPH, the County has 
received State funds for Local Government Relief and has 
provided General Fund monies in the amount of $3.1 
million to DPH to offset the shortfall in CHIP revenues. 
Mr. Leong states that the reduction in the State allocation 
of CHIP funds, from the amount of $7,961,916 in the FY' 
1999-2000 DPH budget resulted from (a) reductions in the 
estimated Tobacco Tax revenue to be collected by the 
State from $539,000,00 to $390,000,000, and (b) changes 
in the California FY 1999-2000 budget that diverted 
Tobacco Tax funds away from the CHIP-funded County 
services to fund other State health programs. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Ttem 3 - File 00-0043 



Department: 
Item: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter V, of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code (Health Code) by amending 
Section 128 thereof, to fix patient rates for services 
furnished by Department of Public Health, retroactively to 
December 1. 1999. 



Description: 



The San Francisco Municipal Code requires Board of 
Supervisors approval of the rates charged by the 
Department of Public Health to patients and third party 
payers, for providing patient care services 1 . Each year, 
DPH reviews the rates that are charged for services and 
makes adjustments, when appropriate, based on a 
computation of the unit cost of providing patient care 
services (as approved by the Controller) and on prevailing 
industry rates 2 . If DPH adjusts its rates for patient care 
services, such rate adjustments are submitted to the Board 
of Supervisors for approval for the City's fiscal year, from 
July 1 through June 30. 

In August of 1999 the Board of Supervisors approved 
adjustments to patient care rates for FY 1999-2000 (File 
99-1389). The proposed ordinance would revise the rates, 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, charged 
by DPH for Home Health Services, retroactive to December 
1, 1999. Home Health Services, which are provided by the 
DPH Community Health Network, include in-home services 
such as nursing, medical social services, and physical, 
occupational, and speech therapy. 

Attachment I, provided by DPH. compares the current FY 
1999-2000 Home Health Services rates, including the 
percentage changes, as previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors, to the subject revised rates. As shown in 



1 Such services include inpatient services provided by San Francisco General and Laguna 
Honda Hospitals, emergency room services, outpatient services provided by DPH clinics. 
home health services, substance abuse and mental health services, and fees for records and 
statistics, such as birth and death records. 

- Ms. Okubo states that DPH surveys Bay Area hospitals to determine the community 
industry standard. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Attachment I, the proposed revised rates, as recommended 
by DPH, would increase from percent to 24 percent. 

1 According to Ms. Anne Okubo of DPH, in November of 
1999, subsequent to the Board of Supervisors having 
approved the Fiscal year 1999-2000 rates for Home Health 
Services, the Federal Health Care Finance Administration 
(HCFA) increased the cost limits for Medicare 
reimbursement for providing Home Health Services. Ms. 
Okubo states that approval of the proposed ordinance 
would authorize DPH to adjust the rates charged for Home 
Health Services to match the new Medicare cost limits set 
by HCFA, retroactively to December 1, 1999, as permitted 
by HCFA. 

2. As shown in Attachment II, provided by DPH, the rates 
charged by DPH for patient care services can differ from 
the actual payment received by DPH for such services from 
third party payers. Third party payers, which include 
private insurance plans, such as managed care plans, and 
public insurance plans, such as Medicare, have their own 
pre-determined reimbursement rates and will only 
reimburse for services provided by DPH, based upon those 
pre-determined rates. According to Ms. Okubo, the third 
party payer will pay either the DPH rate charged to 
patients or their own pre-determined rate (e.g. cost limits), 
depending on which rate is lower. Ms. Okubo states that 
the DPH proposed new rates for Home Health Services 
were calculated to prevent the DPH rates from being lower 
than the third party payer's pre-determined rates, and 
therefore, preventing DPH from receiving a lower 
reimbursement from third party payers. 

3. The estimated DPH revenues, resulting from the patient 
care rate adjustments for FY 1999-2000, including Home 
Health Service rates, as previously approved by the Board 
of Supervisors in the FY 1999-2000 DPH budget, total 
$28,257,792 (File 99-1389). Ms. Okubo estimates that the 
proposed revised rates would result in additional revenue of 
approximately §17.506 annually. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

PROPOSED PATIENT RATES 

FY 99-00 



Attachment I 



TYPE OF SERVICE 
COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK 





CURRENT 


REVISED 




UNITS OF 


RATE 


RATE 


PERCENT 


SERVICE 


FY 99-00 


FY 99-00 


CHANGE 



Home Health Services 
Skilled Nursing 
Home Health Aide Services 
Medical Social Services 
Physical Therapy 
Occupational Therapy 
Speech Therapy 



Visit 
Visit 
Visit 
Visit 
Visit 
Visit 



147 


153 


4% 


79 


79 


0% 


203 


213 


5% 


141 


175 


24% 


141 


175 


24% 


145 


177 


22% 



Attachment II 



City and County of San Francisco 



Department of Public Health 




Date: 


January 12, 2000 


To: 


Harvey Rose 




Budget Analyst 


From: 


Anne Okubo 




Budget Manager 



MEMORANDUM 



Subject: 



Patient Rates Ordinance - Home Health 



This memo is in response to your request for information on revenues associated with revised 
home health rates proposed by the Department of Public Health. 

The proposed ordinance to revise home health rates will increase patient charges for home health 
services provided by the Community Health Network. This revision reflects increased cost limits 
published by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) in November. 

Rates charged to patients typically differ from the reimbursement received from third party 
payors such as Medi-Cal, Medicare and health maintenance organizations. Third party payors 
typically reimburse providers for services at rates that are lower than patient charges. Proposed 
home health rates reflecting the higher cost limits will preserve the differential between patient 
charges and revenue reimbursed by Medicare (reimbursement is based on the lower of two rates 
- cost limits or patient charges). Without approval of this ordinance. Medicare reimbursement 
will be less than the maximum reimbursement allowed by HCFA, resulting in lost revenue to the 
Communitv Health Network. 






inance 



101 Grove Street 



San Francisco, CA 94102 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 00-0071 
Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Budget: 



Fire Department 

Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $52,000 to fund the planning and design for the 
repair to the ruptured Auxiliary Water Supply System main 
pipe at Mission and Main Streets. 

$52,000 

Fire Protection Systems Improvement General Obligation 
(GO) Bonds, previously appropriated and placed on reserve 
by the Board of Supervisors 

The summary budget for the subject reserved funds is as 
follows: 



Description: 



Initial Investigation 






Contractual Services 


$15,958 




DPW Staff 


7.573 




Total Initial Investigation 




23,531 


Planning and Design 






DPW Staff 




28.469 


Total 




$52,000 



The Attachment, provided by DPW. contains details to 
support the summary budget above. 

The subject reserved funds would be used for the planning 
and design work needed for the repair of the ruptured 
Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) main pipe at 
Mission and Main Streets. The AWSS is a system of 
reservoirs, cisterns, pipelines, pump stations, and fireboats. 
comprising the source of water supply for fire protection in 
emergency situations. 

The City sold a total of $46.2 million in Fire Proti 
Systems Improvement General Obligation Bonds ($31 
million in 1987 and $15.2 million in 1991) to finance 
improvements to the City's Auxiliary Water Supply System. 
In March of 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation ordinance for $3,907,900 (.File 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

101-95-61) from accrued interest from the Fire Protection 
Systems Improvement Bonds for four categories of capital 
improvement projects: (a) repair and improvement of the 
Fireboat Phoenix, (b) implementation of motorized AWSS 
control valves, (c) repairs to the AWSS water storage tank. 
and (4) emergency repairs of AWSS facilities. The subject 
requested release of reserved funds would come from 
category (4) emergency repairs of AWSS facilities. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Saed Toloui of DPW. on January 1. 1999, 

a leak was discovered in the 14-inch Auxiliary Water Supply 
System (AWSS) line at the intersection of Mission and Main 
Streets. Initial investigation of the leak was conducted by 
Stacy and Witbeck, Inc., a private contractor, who was 
already working under an existing DPW contract near that 
site on the Mid-Embarcadero Project, the waterfront street 
improvement project. After the source of the leak was 
located, the main valves on both ends of the ruptured pipe 
were closed, shutting off the high-pressure water supply to 
seven of the Fire Department's water hydrants. Mr. Toloui 
states that DPW has been unable to begin the repair of the 
ruptured AWSS main line, although the leak was initially 
discovered in January of 1999, because PG&E, Muni, and 
the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) had to first reroute 
utility lines at the site to provide access to the AWSS main 
line. 

2. According to Mr. Toloui. and as explained in the DPW 
Attachment to this report, the subject funds, totaling 
S52.000. would be expended for (a) DPW staff ($36,042) to 
plan the repair work, including specifications, coordinate 
with utility companies, obtain the necessary permits, and 
design a 50 foot long. 14-inch ductile iron pipe to replace the 
ruptured AWSS main line, and (b) contractual services 
performed by Stacy and Witbeck. Inc. (S15.958) for the 
initial investigation of the AWSS mam line leak, which has 
been completed. 

3. According to Mr. Toloui, the repair work is expected to 
begin the first week of March, will be conducted only on 
weekends to avoid disruption of weekday traffic at the site, 
and will take approximately 5 weeks to complete. Mr. 
Toloui states that the estimated cost of the actual repair 
work is SI 11.000. and that the subsequent release of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

reserved funds in that amount would be subject to Board of 
Supervisors approval. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9n 



City and County of San Francisco 




% 



Attachment 

(415)558-4021 

FAX (415) 558-4519 

http://www.sfdpw.com 



Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 
Mark A. Primeau, AIA, Director and City Architect 



Department of Public Works 

Project Management Division 

30 Van Ness Avenue, 5'" Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102-6020 

Kathryn How, Assistant City Engineer 



Cost Breakdown for Planning and Design 
Repair of AWSS at Main and Mission Streets 



Title 


Hourly Rate 
(including 
overhead) 


Number of 
Hours 


Extension 


Equipment and labor for field investigation 






S 15,958 * 




Civil Engineer (preliminary investigation) 


S 91 


28 


$ 2,548" 


Construction Inspector (preliminary 
investigation) 


$ 75 


67 


$ 5.025" 


Associate Mechanical Engineer 


$ 77i 


133 


$10,241 " 


Senior Mechanical Engineer 


$103 


4 


$ 412" 


'Engineering Assoc. 


$ 57; 


70 


$ 3,990**1 


Senior Clerk 


$ 45| 


8 


$ 360**^ 


Assoc. Traffic Engineer 


$ 60! 


10 


S 600"! 


iTraffic Engineer 


$ 69i 


30 


$ 2,070" 


Senior Traffic Engineer 


$ 81 


4 


$ 324** 


! Project Manager I 


$ 84i 


90 


$ 7,560" 


Civil Engineer (Project Manager) 


S 911 


32 


$ 2,912" 


[TOTAL 






$ 52,000 



* Contractual services for Stacy and Witbeck, Inc., totaling SI 5,958 
** DPW in-house staff, totaling S36,042 



•IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO' We are dedicated individuals committed to teamwork, 
customer service and continuous improvement in partnership with the community 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 00-0067 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Airport 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$55,126,710 in capital and bond fund interest income for 
five capital improvement projects at the Airport. 

$55,126,710 

Interest income from Airport capital and bond funds as 
listed in the Attachment provided by the Airport. 

The proposed ordinance would appropriate $55,126,710 
from Airport capital and bond funds for five capital 
projects at the Airport's new International Terminal 
complex including: 

• $22,271,020 to fund four approved capital projects in 
the Airport's Five Year Capital Projects Plan (Project 
Nos. 1 to 4 below); and 

• $32,855,690 to partially fund one Master Plan capital 
project, as provided for in the Airport's Plan of 
Finance for Near Term Master Plan Projects (Project 
No. 5 below). 

A list of the five capital projects is as follows: 



Capital Project 


Amount 


(1) 


Tenant Utility Extensions and 
Infrastructure 


$8,785,850 


(2) 


Tenant Infrastructure 


4.307,000 


(3) 


Design Services for Food and 
Beverage Program 


1,078,170 


(4) 


Food Court Build-out 


8.100.000 




Subtotal: 


$22,271,020 


(5) 


Aii-Train Operating System 


32.855.690 




TOTAL: 


$55,126,710 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



1. Tenant Utility Extensions and 
Infrastructure 



5,785,850 



This capita 1 project would fully fund and install utility 
extensions (heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, water, 
sewer, power, fire alarm, and telephone/data). A 
summary budget follows. 



Utility extensions for concessionaire 


$2,087,379 


tenants in Boarding Area G 




Utility extensions for concessionaire 


2,417,184 


tenants 




Utility extensions for airline tenants 


3,905,485 


Contingency (approximately 3 percent of 


252,302 


construction costs) 




Testing and inspection 


123.500 


TOTAL: 


$8,785,850 



The two contractors who have been selected to perform 
the work, Tutor-Saliba and Pavex Construction, are the 
general contractors for the International Terminal 
complex and were selected through the Airport's 
competitive bidding process, according to Ms. Lisa Harris 
of the Airport. 



2. Tenant Infrastructure 



$4,307,000 



This capital project would fully fund the construction of 
the following eight categories of facilities situated at 
various locations in the International Terminal complex, 
as shown in the summary budget on the following page. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



?-} 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(1) Food Court roof and storm drain 


$500,000 


(2) Coffee concessions in the Arrival area 


300,000 


(3) Four radio rooms on the 5 th floor 


400,000 


(4) Modifications to airline ticketing office 


400,000 


counter keyboards to accommodate 




credit cards 




(5) Power and communications for bus 


100,000 


shelters 




(6) Increasing the electrical and 


57,000 


communications capability of foreign 




currency ATMs 




(7) Construction of architectural revisions 


2,450,000 


and modifications to the mechanical, 




electrical, and energy monitoring 




control systems in the Federal 




Inspection Services space on the 2 nd 




floor 




(8) Level 4 exits 


100.000 


TOTAL: 


$4,307,000 



A contractor for this project will be selected through a 
competitive bidding process, according to Ms. Harris. 



Design Services for Food and 
Beverage Program 



$1,078,170 



This capital project would partially fund the design 
services for the Food and Beverage Program which is 
estimated to cost a total of $1,198,750. The budget for 
this capital project would fund seven sets of professional 
services, as shown on the following page. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(1) 


Professional design services for the 
preliminary design phase 


$148,926 


(2) 


Professional interior architectural 
design services for common areas 


710,653 


(3) 


Professional design services for 
tenants and kiosks 


36,925 


(4) 


Professional design services for office 
spaces 


14,996 


(5) 


Professional design services for food 
and beverage spaces 


54,875 


(6) 


Professional services to prepare food 
and beverage concession leasing 
documents and assist in tenant 
outreach and selection 


40,000 


(7) 


Other consultant services (e.g. 
graphic artists) 


71.795 




TOTAL: 


$1,078,170 



According to Ms. Harris, on December 1, 1998, following a 
Request for Proposals (RFP) process, the Airport 
contracted with Pacific Gateway Partnership to provide 
tenant outreach, leasing, and management services for 
the Food and Beverage Program. Pacific Gateway 
Partnership has subcontracted with SZPM Design Studio 
for design services for this program. Ms. Harris states 
that $792,281 has been expended to date which has been 
funded in the interim from available commercial paper 
financing, as previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors (Resolution 620-97), in anticipation of 
reimbursement by this subject appropriation. 

As noted above, the total estimated cost of this project is 
$1,198,750. Ms. Harris states that the estimated 
$120,580 difference between this subject appropriation of 
$1,078,170 and the estimated total project cost of 
$1,198,750 would be funded from previously appropriated 
Airport revenue bond funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

4. Food Court Build-out 



$8,100,000 



This capital project would fully fund the build-out of the 
new Food Court with the exception of the interiors of 
tenants' leasehold spaces. Improvements to the tenants' 
leasehold spaces will be the responsibility of the 
individual tenants. The budget for this capital project 
would fund professional services and equipment purchase 
as follows: 



Professional services contract to coordinate 


$2,057,000 


and develop the RFP process for Food 




Court construction contractor 




Construction management services contract 


4,569,240 


Purchase of common area furniture, 


854,760 


fixtures, and equipment 




Construction contingency 


619.000 


TOTAL: 


$8,100,000 



According to Ms. Harris, the contract for this capital 
project in the amount of $8,100,000 was awarded to 
Pacific Gateway Partnership, which was selected through 
a RFP process. Pacific Gateway Partnership has 
subcontracted with Dennis J. Amoroso Construction 
Company for construction management services in the 
amount of $4,569,240. 



5. AirTrain Operating System 



$32,855,690 



This capital project would partially fund the procurement 
and installation of the operating system for the Airport 
Rail Transit ("AirTrain") System 1 as required by the 
Airport's Master Plan. The budget for this capital project 
would fund equipment purchases. A summary budget is 
on the following page. 



1 The AirTrain System is a electric train system which will run within the Airport complex linking 
the Airport's four terminals and the Bay Area Rapid Transit terminal to be located at the Air] 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



13 AirTrain vehicles (13 x $1,318,131 per 


$17,135,703 


vehicle) 




Electronic components of the AirTrain 


15,719.987 


System 




TOTAL: 


$32,855,690 



On August 23, 1996 the Airport awarded a contract to 
Adtranz selected through the Airport's competitive 
bidding process. According to Ms. Harris, this project 
commenced in March of 1998 and is scheduled to be 
completed in December of 2001 (approximately three 
years and 10 months). 

The estimated total cost of this project is $121,580,296. 
Ms. Harris states that the estimated $88,724,606 
difference between the subject appropriation for this 
project of $32,855,690 and the estimated total project cost 
of $121,580,296 would be funded from Master Plan bond 
funds. Ms. Harris states that $18,700,000 of the 
estimated $88,724,606 Master Plan bond fund 
contribution has been expended to date on the design and 
construction of the AirTrain System's vehicle tracks and 
emergency walkways. According to Ms. Harris, the Board 
of Supervisors approved all Master Plan projects, and the 
issuance of Master Plan bond funds in the amount of 
$2,850,000,000 to fund those projects, under Resolution 
880-96. 



Budget: 



The total budget for the five proposed capital projects 
listed above, including the additional funding which will 
be required to complete these five capital projects, is 
summarized on the following page. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 







This 










Supplemental 


Additional 


Total Project 




Project 


Appropriation 


Costs 


Cost 


(1) 


Tenant Utility Extensions 
and Infrastructure 


$8,785,850 


$0 


$8,785,850 


(2) 


Tenant Infrastructure 


4,307,000 





4,307,000 


(3) 


Design Services for Food and 
Beverage Program 


1,078,170 


120,580 


1,198,750 


(4) 


Food Court Budd-out 


8,100,000 





8,100,000 


(5) 


AirTrain Operating System 


32,855.690 


88,724,606 


121,580.296 




TOTAL: 


$55,126,710 


$88,845,186 


$143,971,896 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 




Harvev M. Rose 



S\ 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakev 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Attachment I 



WT-TEREaS. 



RESOLVED. 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY OF 5AN FRANCISCO 

RESOLUTION Mrt Cj"-~iJ'-»<'}A 



535.116. 710 SUPPLSMErVTAJL- APPROPRIATION OF iriTEREST TTVCOMT: 

the Lease and Use Agreement between the Airport and the airlines requires that interest income earned on 
capital projects funds be used exclusively for capital project purposes; and 



WHEREAS, interest earnings on. capital project funds total 555,126.710 for ? i" 199S/99; now therefore, be it 



that this Commission hereby requests the Mayor to recommend to uSe Board of Supervisors a SunpIomenLal 
Appropriation of S55, 126,7 10 from the Unreserved Fund Balance of the capital project funds shown below: 



Fund Tide 
Aoorovwi Caoital Funds 
1967 CO. Bonds 
1997 Series 3 Rav«iu« 3onds 
19S3 Series D Revenue Bonds 
1 990 Scries E Revenue Bonds 
Issue 1 
Issue 2 
Issue 3 
Issue 4 
Issue 5 
Issue 6 
Issue S3 
Issue 9 A 
Issue 9B 
Issue 10A 
Issue 1 OB 
Issue 1 1 
Issue 12A 
Issue 12B 
Issue 13A 
Issue 13B 
Issue 14 
Issue 15A 
Issue lili 
Issue 16A 
Issue 1 63 
Issue 17 
Issue ISA 
Issue 18B 
hsuc 19 
Issue 20 
Issue II 
TSKUe 22 
Issue 23 A 
Issue 23B 

TOTAL 



■Amouni 

SI 3,259,800 

55,990 

5449,580 

S652.600 

5274,630 

S31.S10 

52,950 

S6.110 

S1.950 

5631,040 

31,430,330 

S3 12.750 

51,160,080 

S721.030 

S724.720 

398,740 

$672,180 

52,225,530 

52.860,120 

52,241,700 

51,949,570 

$508,990 

S2.152.S00 

54,601,500 

52,135,780 

S2. 154280 

Si, 490,460 

51 .530.400 

53,813, ISO 

SI, 038,470 

S193220 

51.292,500 

52,333,120 

5531,700 

$523, 100 

S55. 126.7 10 



/ hireh-j ctrtiht ;hai ;he f ort?OKnx resolution was adcoted iv \r.t Airvor: Commission 

DEC 1 1 £$9 " 

-.' :ts meenns at 




C^r^ Crx_t. / Lj 
Secretary 



29 




,1 



City and County of §an Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, January 26, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano. 
Members Absent: Sue Bierman. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10:09 a.m. 

AGENDA CHANGES 
REGULAR AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JAN 3 I 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



992155 (General Obligation Bond Accountability Ordinance) 
Supervisor Yee 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Article VIII, Sections 2.70 through 2.74 to Chapter 2 to 
provide a procedure for submission of general obligation bond accountability reports and specifying the 
content of said reports. 

(Adds Article VIII, Sections 2.70 through 2.74.) 

1 1/22/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 12/22/1999. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Ammiano. In 

Support: Isabel Wade, Neighborhood Parks Council; Emeric Kalman. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:32 PM on 1/27/00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



January 26, 2000 



000084 [Lease of property owned by Herbst Foundation at 30 Van Ness Avenue to relocate and provide 

expansion space for the Dept. of Human Resources' Workers Compensation Division currently housed 
at 1145 Market Street) 

Resolution authorizing a lease at 30 Van Ness Avenue for the Department of Human Resources (Real Estate 

Department) 

1/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi, Department Real Estate; 

Supervisor Yee. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000018 [Authorizing the Airport Commission to enter into a contract with the Regents of the University of 

California to perform studies on the habitats of herring and oysters during the Runway Reconfiguration 
Program) 

Resolution concurring with the action of the Airport Commission to enter into a professional services contract 

with the University of California to perform herring and oyster habitat studies notwithstanding deletion of 

indemnification requirement for patent rights, copyright or trademark infringement. (Airport Commission) 

1/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Jon Ballestros, Airport Commission. Amended 

on page 1, line 18 to change "21.19" to "21.21". 

AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000079 [Grant to be used by the Airport to purchase medium duty compressed natural gas vehicles to reduce 
emissions and improve the air on terminal roadways and Bay Area cities] 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $ 1 09,200 from 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) for the acquisition of medium duty Compressed 
Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles. (Airport Commission) 
1/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Jon Ballestros, Airport Commission; 
Supervisor Ammiano. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 3:32 PM on 1/27/00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



January 26, 2000 



000080 [Grant to be used by the Airport to purchase heavy duty compressed natural gas vehicles to reduce 
emissions and improve the air on terminal roadways and Bay Area cities] 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $90,000 from 

the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) for acquisition of heavy duty Compressed 

Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles. (Airport Commission) 

1/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Jon Ballestros, Airport Commission; 

Supervisor Ammiano. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000081 [Grant to be used by the Airport to purchase compressed natural gas shuttle vehicles to reduce emissions 
and improve the air on terminal roadways and Bay Area cities) 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $810,000 from 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) for acquisition of Compressed Natural Gas 
(CNG) shuttle vehicles. (Airport Commission) 
1/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Jon Ballestros, Airport Commission; 
Supervisor Ammiano. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



992261 [Street Parking Spaces] 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to consider the street parking spaces m the City. 

12/6/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Bond Yee, Department of 

Parking and Traffic; Bob Planthold, Sr. Action Network; Philip Carleton; Supervisor Ammiano. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



992181 [Painted Crosswalks and Other Street Markings] 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to consider the cost to the City to paint crosswalks and other street markings to guide pedestrians and 
vehicles safely throughout the City, particularly in the Outer Sunset/Parkside areas. 
1 1/22/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Bond Yee, Department of 
Parking and Traffic; Bob Planthold, Sr. Action Network; Philip Carleton; Supervisor Ammiano. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:33 PM on 1/27/00 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes January 26, 2000 



991564 [City Employees Commuter Check Benefits] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing to consider how to provide commuter check benefits to encourage public transit use by City 

employees. 

8/9/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

1 2/1 5/99, CONTINUED Continued to January 12, 2000. 

1/12/00, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano ; Paula Vlamings, Legislative Analyst; Rick Ruvolo, 

Clean Air Program; David Chan, Transportation Authority; Catherine Rigsby; Laura Spanjian, Municipal 

Railway. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 1 1:37 a.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 3:33 PM on 1/27/00 




Susan Horn 

Government Documents Section 
Main Library 



CITY AND COUNTY ^-^^J^j OF SAN FR^dSCO 

*/oo BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco. CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 

January 20, 2000 DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
TO: Finance and Labor Committee i * ki n r «„.._ 

FROM: Budget Analyst SAN FRANCISCO 

SUBJECT: January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting C UBRA RY 

Item 1 - File 99-2155 

Item: Ordinance amending Part I of the San Francisco Municipal 

Code (San Francisco Administrative Code) by adding 
Article VIII, Sections 2.70 through 2.74 to Chapter 2 to 
provide a procedure for submission of General Obligation 
Bond accountability reports and specifying the content of 
said reports. 

Description: Currently, the City does not have a procedure for reporting 

to the Board of Supervisors the actual expenditure of 
General Obligation (GO) Bond proceeds after the Board of 
Supervisors have appropriated such proceeds. The City 
Department or entity, receiving the GO Bond proceeds, 
provides a projection of the expenditure of the bond 
proceeds (referred to as the "proposed expenditure report" 
in the subject ordinance) at the time of the sale of GO 
Bonds, and again at the appropriation of the GO Bond 
proceeds. However, no formal reports for the actual 
expenditure of the bond proceeds are submitted to the 
Board of Supervisors after the Board of Supervisors has 
appropriated the GO Bond proceeds. 

The proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative 
Code to require that each City Department or entity, 
receiving an appropriation of GO Bond proceeds, submit an 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



accountability report, reporting the actual expenditures 
made from the bond proceeds, within 60 days after the date 
that all such proceeds have been expended. The report 
would be submitted to the Treasurer, the Controller, the 
Clerk of the Board, the Budget Analyst, and the Director of 
Public Finance. 

The accountability report would contain: 

(a) certification from an authorized official within the City 
Department or entity that the accountability report is 
true and correct; 

(b) the cumulative amount of GO Bond proceeds already 
expended on the project and available to be expended on 
the project; 

(c) a brief description of each project line item for which GO 
Bond proceeds have been expended (the description 
would be the same as in the proposed expenditure report 
submitted at the time of the sale of the GO Bonds, or the 
appropriation of the Bond proceeds); 

(d) the amount of Bond proceeds expended on each project 
line item and, if applicable, the estimate of the amount 
of Bond proceeds remaining to be spent on each project 
line item: 

(e) identification of both completed and uncompleted project 
line items; 

(f) the status of and explanation for each uncompleted 
project line item; 

(g) identification of and explanation for any project line 
item not included in the proposed expenditure report; 
and 

(h) identification of any project line item included in the 
proposed expenditure report for which Bond proceeds 
would not be used. 

Additionally, the proposed ordinance would require that: 

( 1) If the bond proceeds have not been expended by the date 
which is three years after the issuance of the GO Bonds, 
the Controller would request the City Department or 
entity, receiving an appropriation of bond proceeds, to 
submit an accountability report to the parties noted above. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

(2) When GO Bonds for a project are issued in a series, the 
City Department or entity, receiving an appropriation of 
bond proceeds, would submit an accountability report for 
the portion of the GO Bonds which have been issued and for 
which bond proceeds have been appropriated, prior to the 
Board of Supervisors approval of the sale of any subsequent 
series of bonds for the same project. 

According to Mr. Dave Sanchez of the City Attorney's 
Office, these two additional accountability reports are only 
required in the situations described above. A City 
department or entity, which has submitted an expenditure 
report as noted in (1) or (2) above, would still be required to 
submit an expenditure report to the Board of Supervisors 
60 days after the date that all appropriated Bond proceeds 
had been expended. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Sanchez, the proposed accountability 

report would be a reporting of the actual expenditures of 
GO Bond proceeds, in order to provide such actual cost data 
regarding these expenditures to the recipients of the report. 
Mr. Sanchez advises that, in accordance with Section 2.73 
of the proposed ordinance, issuance of the accountability 
report would not affect the validity of the authorization and 
issuance of any bonds. 

Mr. Sanchez states that it would be within the discretion of 
the City Department or entity, which received the bond 
proceeds, to determine the level of reporting to be made in 
the subject report. The City Department or entity would 
define the project line item, discussed above. Currently, 
when a Department or entity requests an appropriation of 
bond proceeds, they provide a detailed list of projects for 
which the bond proceeds would be expended. Mr. Sanchez 
states that this list of projects, referred to in the proposed 
ordinance as the "proposed expenditure report", would be 
the basis of the project line item, submitted in the 
accountability report. 

2. Ms. Ann Carey of the Controller's Office states that 
authority to expend proceeds from GO Bonds can be 
narrowly or broadly defined. In the instance when 
authority to expend bond proceeds is narrowly defined, the 
accountability report would account for bond proceed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



expenditures on the specified tasks. Ms. Carey states that, 
in the instance when authority to expend bond proceeds is 
broadly defined, the City Department or entity has 
flexibility in determining the expenditure of such proceeds. 
The City Department or entity may expend the proceeds on 
projects different from the ones identified at the time of the 
appropriation of the bond proceeds, based on changing 
needs or priorities. Such expenditures would be within the 
authority of the City Department or entity if these 
expenditures were within the broadly defined categories, 
established at the time of issuance of the GO Bonds. 
However, in such instances, approval of this legislation 
would result in the Board of Supervisors knowing what 
actual expenditures have been incurred. Mr. Sanchez 
advises that the proposed legislation would not require that 
actual expenditures match the proposed expenditures, 
submitted at the time of the appropriation of the bond 
proceed- 

3. According to Ms. Tina Olson of the Department of Public 
Works (DPW), the proposed accountability report would 
formalize the bond reporting process. Currently, DPW has a 
bond reporting process that includes financial plans, 
monthly project management reports, and monthly bond 
meetings. Ms. Olson states that the proposed accountability 
report would formalize DPW's process by ensuring periodic 
reporting and by requiring the project manager to work 
with the DPW financial analysts, assigned to capital 
projects, to ensure that the numbers are complete and 
accurate. According to Ms. Olson, compliance with the 
proposed ordinance would require DPW to establish formal 
guidelines and procedures, including (a) the recording of 
appropriations and reserves, (b) the level of project 
reporting in FAMIS, (c) the allocation of funds to the UNA 
(Unallocated Account) sub-fund 1 , (d) accounting quality 
controls, (e) level of review, and (f) timing of reports. 



1 DPW established the UNA sub-fund for projects with multiple funding sources, where expenditures 
and encumbrances could not be broken down at the point of recording transactions. Under general 
guidelines, budgets are established under the proper sub-fund and expenditures/encumbrances are 
recorded in UNA. Expenditures in the UNA are reallocated on a monthly basis to the proper sub- 
fund. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



4. Ms. Olson states that, in order to comply with the 
proposed ordinance, the City would need to establish which 
City Department or entity would be responsible for 
compliance: the entity requesting appropriation of the bond 
proceeds, or the City Department performing the work. If 
DPW, as the performing Department, were deemed 
responsible, then Ms. Olson states that the appropriation 
and project structure would need to stay within DPW. 

Mr. Sanchez advises that the proposed ordinance specifies 
that the City Department or entity receiving the 
appropriation of Bond proceeds would be responsible for 
submitting the required accountability report to the Board 
of Supervisors. However, Mr. Sanchez states that, if DPW 
were managing the actual projects for which the subject 
bond proceeds had been appropriated, DPW would have the 
information required for the accountability report. 
Therefore, Mr. Sanchez states that, in practice, DPW might 
prepare the accountability report but the City Department 
or entity that received the bond proceeds appropriation 
would be required to sign-off on such report. 

5. Additionally, Ms. Olson states that the City Department 
or entity would need to determine the person within the 
Department or entity, who would (a) have overall 
responsibility for compliance with the proposed ordinance, 
(b) be authorized to certify the accountability report, and (c) 
have specific responsibility for the bond-funded projects. 

6. Ms. Olson states that formalizing the bond reporting 
process, in compliance with the proposed ordinance, would 
require DPW to develop formal procedures to administer 
this ordinance and to identify the responsible person to 
manage the overall process for DPW. According to Ms. 
Olson, such formalization of the bond reporting process 
would increase Departmental workload and may require 
additional staff assistance. However, Ms. Olson states that 
DPW would not request additional positions to address this 
workload. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



7. According to Mr. Sanchez, the proposed ordinance 
applies to non-City entities, such as the San Francisco 
Unified School District and the San Francisco Community 
College District. However, since the City cannot bind a non- 
City entity directly, Mr. Sanchez advises that, if a non-City 
entity receives an appropriation of General Obligation Bond 
proceeds, the City would need to enter into a Memorandum 
of Understanding or other type of agreement with the non- 
City entity, requiring that the non-City entity submit an 
accountability report to the Board of Supervisors. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 00-0084 



Department: 
Item: 

Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 



Department of Human Resources (DHR) 
Department of Real Estate (DRE) 

Resolution authorizing a new lease at 30 Van Ness 
Avenue for the Department of Human Resources' Workers 
Compensation Division. 

30 Van Ness Avenue, third floor 

To provide space for the DHR's Workers Compensation 
Division. 



Lessor: 
Lessee: 



No. ofSq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Cost: 

Utilities and 
Janitorial Service: 

Term of Lease: 

Right of Renewal: 



Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Herbst Foundation 

The City and County of San Francisco, acting by and 
through the DHR. 



11,563 square feet at a monthly rental rate of 
approximately $26,017 ($2.25 per square foot) for years 1 
through 5, and a monthly rental rate of approximately 
$27,944 (approximately $2.42 per square foot) for years 6 
and 7. 

$312,201 in years 1 through 5, and $335,327 in years 6 
and 7. 

Provided by Lessor. 

April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2007 (seven years) 

According to Mr. Steve Alms of the DRE, there are two 
options of five years each to extend the term of the seven- 
year lease. The Lessor would be able to adjust the rent at 
the beginning of each five-year extension term in line 
with the Consumer Price Index (San Francisco/Oakland 
base). 

FY 1999-2000 DHR budget. 

The proposed resolution would authorize a new seven- 
year lease of 11,563 square feet of space for the DHR at 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit tee 

January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

30 Van Ness Avenue. This space would accommodate the 
DHR's Workers Compensation Division. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Fred Howell of DHR, the 49 

employees of DHR's Workers Compensation Division 
currently occupy approximately 9,127 square feet of the 
18,254 square feet of office space leased by DHR at 1145 
Market Street. The remaining approximately 9,127 
square feet is occupied by DHR's Health Service System 
staff comprising 51 employees. DHR wishes to move the 
Workers Compensation Division from 1145 Market Street 
to 30 Van Ness Avenue in order to permit DHR's Health 
Service System staff to occupy the entire 18,245 square 
feet at 1145 Market Street. According to Ms. Ann 
Sommercamp of DHR, the additional space for the Health 
Service System is needed to house the 7 additional staff 
included in the FY 1999-2000 budget, who were 
authorized to eliminate the City's health insurance claims 
backlog and to provide improved customer service to the 
City's various health plan participants. Additional space 
is also required to enlarge (a) the open enrollment area, 
and (b) the training area, according to Ms. Sommercamp. 
With the additional 7 employees for the Health Service 
System, the Health Service System would have 58 
employees occupying 18,254 square feet of space, or an 
average space per employee of 314.7 square feet. 
However, as noted above, a portion of such space would be 
allocated t<» enlarge the open enrollment and training 
areas. 

2. Under the proposed new lease, the 49 employees of the 
DHR Workers Compensation Division, presently located 
at 1145 Market Street, would be relocated to 11,563 
square feet of space at 30 Van Ness Avenue. Therefore, 
the 30 Van Ness Avenue facility would provide the 
Workers Compensation Division with approximately 
2,436 square feet, or 26.7 percent of additional space 
(11.563 less 9.127) than the approximately 9,127 square 
feet currently occupied at 1145 Market Street. Mr. Howell 
states that the approximately 2.436 square feet of 
additional space at 30 Van Xess Avenue would provide 
space for separate computer, lunch, and conference rooms 
which the Workers Compensation Division currently 
shares with the Health Service System at 1145 Market 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

8 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Street. On average, the 49 employees would occupy 
approximately 236 square feet per employee. 

3. The total rent for the Workers Compensation Division 
and Health Service System employees at 1145 Market is 
$322,135 annually. Since that space will continue to be 
occupied by the Health Service System, the proposed rent 
of $312,201, beginning in Year 1 of the proposed new 
lease, represents an additional cost to the City. 

4. Mr. Alms states that the proposed monthly rental 
rates of $26,017 in years 1 through 5 and $27,944 in years 
6 and 7 represent fair market value. 

5. The Lessor, the Herbst Foundation, would provide, at 
no cost to the City, tenant improvements pursuant to the 
DHR's specifications up to a maximum cost of $350,000. 
Completion of these improvements is expected by April 1, 
2000. The DHR would be responsible for additional 
tenant improvement costs of up to $34,000 for (a) 
additional floor strengthening to accommodate the weight 
of the Workers Compensation Division's shelving 
requirements, and (b) computer room heating, ventilation, 
and air-conditioning systems. The costs of these 
additional tenant improvements would be paid from 
within DHR's previously approved FY 1999-2000 budget, 
according to Mr. Howell. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 00-0018 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Term of Contract: 
Budget: 



Airport Commission 

Resolution concurring with the action of the Airport 
Commission, authorizing a professional services contract 
with the University of California (UC), a sole source 
provider, to perform herring and oyster habitat studies in 
the San Francisco Bay. This resolution states that the 
City would waive the indemnification requirement for 
patent rights, copyright, or trademark infringement. 

$306,000 

Airport Commercial Paper Program 

March 1, 2000 through February 28, 2001 (one year) 

The summary budget for the proposed contract is as 

follows: 



Description: 



Salary and Benefits 


$149,000 


Supplies and Expenses 


42,500 


Other Expenses 


25,500 


Travel 


12.000 


Subtotal, Direct Costs 


229,000 


Indirect Costs (approximately 33.6% of 




direct costs) 


77.000 


Total Contract Costs 


$306,000 



The attached memorandum, provided by the Airport, 
contains details to support the summary budget shown 
above. 

The proposed contract between the Airport and the 
University of California would authorize UC to perform 
herring and oyster habitat studies in the San Francisco 
Bay as part of the Airport's Runway Reconfiguration 
Program. The Runway Reconfiguration Program would 
reconfigure the Airport's e\" sting runways in order to 
reduce air traffic delays, reduce noise, and accommodate 
larger aircraft. The Airport is currently in the 
environmental and planning stages of the project, 
including conducting meetings with the Bay 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 






Conservation and Development Corporation (BCDC), 
environmental and community organizations, and the 
Federal Aviation Administration. 

1. According to Ms. Paula Jesson of the City Attorney's 
Office, the University of California has a policy against 
agreeing to indemnify third parties with respect to 
claims based on copyright and trademark infringement. 
Ms. Jesson advises that, given the specialized nature of 
the services being sought, it would be reasonable for the 
Board of Supervisors to conclude that the need for the 
services outweighs the potential liability to the City. 

2. The City Attorney advises that Board of Supervisors 
approval of this resolution is necessary only because the 
subject contract contains a clause waiving Section 6.21 of 
the City Administrative Code, requiring indemnification 
of the City for patent rights, copyright, or trademark 
infringement. 

3. According to Mr. Greg Lyman of the Airport, the 
Airport Reconfiguration Program would include a plan to 
restore portions of the Bay to wetlands, to offset any Bay 
land that would be filled-in in order to create new 
runways. Mr. Lyman states that the proposed contract 
with the University of California to study the herring 
and oyster habitats would be part of the Airport's plan to 
minimize the environmental impact of the runway 
reconfiguration on the Bay. The Airport would award 
the contract to UC on a sole source basis because the UC 
Bodega Marine Laboratory, which would conduct the 
study, has unique experience and expertise in this field, 
according to Mr. Lyman. 



Recommendation: 



Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



M AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT PROGRA.V 



« 



L 



SUMMARY BUDGET (12 months) 

Oary N. Cherr (Bodega Marine laboratory, UC Davie) 

Frad J. Griffin (Bodega Marine Laboratory. UC Davie) 

Robert TwKt (REGIS, UC, Berk* lay) 

Stephen Bollene (Romberg Tlburon Cent»r, SFSU) 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 



CATEGORY 

K. PERSONNEL: SALAKV A BENEFITS 

B. SUPPLIES & EXPENSES 

C. OTHER COSTS 

Adrmrustrettve. 
Tech Advteory 
Romberg Tiburon Center Suivey 

D. TRAVEL 
Total Direct Coeu 

indirect Coat* © 28K o/ $190,895 ' 
©604% 0f$33.959* 
Q51%of $45,297* 

Total Budget 



BML 


UCB 


SFSU 


TOTAL 


$106,010 


$23,490 


$19,500 


$149,000 


31.000 


6.500 


6.000 


42,500 


2.500 
fl.000 
5,000 




10.000 


2,500 

8,000 

15,000 


12,000 






12,000 



"$164,610 $28,990 $14,506 $^fc\W 

44,2*© 44,*V> 

15, || ^ 15115 

17.595 17,595 



~$2O*.09e $45,105 $52,095 %S0t,0Oo 



• Indirect Costs are foeed by Instrtution and location of facility. They represent overhead charges that are 
submitted to the Stelo The Indirect Cost Rate 



12 



AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (WED) 1.19" 00 8:40/ST. 6:40/NO. 



Af-t ac ^ Tnent: 
Page 2" of 2 




AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: Sevenn Campbell DATE: January 18, 2000 

FROM: Greg Lyman^/j^' 

SUBJECT: UC Regents Indirect Costs 

The Airport wishes to enter into contract with the Regents of the University of California to 
study herring and oyster habitat. The U.C. Regents have the unique capability to perform this 
work through the U.C. Davis facility, the Bodega Marine Laboratory. Addiuonally, U.C. 
Berkeley and San Francisco State University will participate. 

The universities constructed their budget using large indirect costs. The indirect costs include 
general administration and overhead (GAO), facility use (laboratory and aquarium facilities), 
and benefits not covered in the Salary and Benefits category (typical Benefit costs were 
calculated at 1 1 % of salary). The indirect amount is calculated as a percentage of project 
costs, approximately 25% of the budget. 

If a private consulting firm provided the services, the indirect costs would be included in the 
labor charges. If the indirect costs ($77,000) were added to die Labor and Benefits cost 
($149,000) and divided by raw salary (estimated at $130,000), the resulting labor multiplier 
would be approximately 1.70. This labor multiplier compares well to the consulting industry. 

Please call me with your questions and comments. 



cc: Peg Divine 
Kevin Kone 
Melba Yee 
Paula Jesson 
Lyn Calerdine 



13 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 00-0079 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Grant Period: 
Description: 



Airport 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept 
and expend a grant in the amount of $109,200 from the Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District (BAA(^MD) for 
acquisition of medium duty Compressed Natural Gas 
(CNG) bus vehicles. Medium duty vehicles are buses that 
seat approximately 15 to 22 passengers. The vehicles range 
from 10,000 to 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. 

$109,200 

Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) administered by 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMDi 

January 2000 - May 2000 

The Airport CNG Scheduled Vehicle Project -- Medium 
Duty Vehicles is a demonstration project to encourage 
companies that transport persons to and from the Airport 
to replace a portion of their gasoline- and diesel-powered 
vehicles with clean Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 
vehicles. The demonstration project would provide funds to 
transportation companies operating at the Airport that 
have not previously operated CNG vehicles to subsidize the 
incremental cost of CNG vehicles over gasoline- and diesel- 
powered vehicles. 

According to the Airport, the demonstration project would 
reduce pollution on Airport roadways and throughout the 
region and represents an innovative and cost-effective use 
of TFCA funds. If the demonstration is successful, the 
Airport anticipates that transportation companies will use 
their own funds to purchase additional CNG vehicles. The 
demonstration project would also help assess CNG vehicle 
performance in scheduled transportation services near the 
Airport and on routes to San Francisco. In addition, the 
project will help indicate the marketing potential for clean 
fuel vehicles. 

The grant would provide partial funding to replace five 
medium-duty gasoline- or diesel-powered buses with five 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



14 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



dedicated CNG buses. The funds provided by the BAAQMD 
would cover the difference in the cost between gasoline- or 
diesel-powered vehicles and the CNG vehicles. This grant 
would allow participating transportation companies to 
purchase an estimated five CNG vehicles at regular 
gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicle prices. The 
transportation companies would supplement the grant 
funds they receive in order to cover the entire cost of the 
new CNG vehicles. This grant provides approximately 22.9 
percent, or $109,200, of the total cost of the estimated five 
CNG vehicles. The grant recipients would provide the 
balance of 77.1 percent, or $368,000, of the total cost of 
$477,200 for the five CNG vehicles. (See Attachment for 
details.) 

Two transportation operators, Caltrain-SFO Shuttle 
(operated by Airline Coach Service) and Bauer Transport 
Service have provided the Airport with letters of intent to 
participate in the demonstration project, and have provided 
specific information on the gasoline- and diesel-powered 
vehicles, which the companies plan to replace in exchange 
for CNG vehicles. The Airport would administer the grant, 
disburse BAAQMD funds to participating transportation 
companies, and monitor the project. 

According to Mr. Roger Hooson of the Airport, an important 
component of this demonstration project is the CNG fueling 
station at the Airport's Ground Transportation Staging 
Area located near the U.S. 101 Millbrae Avenue 
interchange. The Airport awarded a lease to a private firm. 
Trillium USA, to build and operate the CNG fueling station 
facility. This fueling station became operational in June of 
1999 and is accessible to any of the Airport's contracted and 
permitted transportation companies that provide 
transportation to and from the Airport. These services 
include door-to-door vans, scheduled vehicles, taxis and the 
Caltrain-SFO Shuttle. Under the terms of its lease with the 
Airport, Trillium USA pays to the Airport three percent of 
its gross revenues, or a minimum of $569 monthly ($6828 
annually), whichever is greater. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 

Budget: 



Estimated Costs 

(Estimates are based on the incremental increased cost of a 
CNG fueled vehicle compared to a conventional fueled 
vehicle - See Attachment for details) 


Per 25 Passenger 
Vehicle 


$15,000 x 4 vehicles 


$60,000 


Per 30 Passenger 
Vehicle 


$40,000 x 1 vehicle 


$40,000 


Reserved for Increased Costs 
(Retained by BAAQMD if not needed) 


$9,200 


Total Budget for Grant: 


$109,200 



To supplement the BAAQMD grant, the grant recipients 
would pay the balance of $368,000 of the estimated total 
cost of $477,200 for the five CNG vehicles. 

Mr. Hooson advises that all costs under this grant are 
capital costs, and 100 percent of the funds would be used 
toward the purchase of the five CNG fueled vehicles. The 
actual amount paid by the BAAQMD will depend in the 
number and type of the CNG vehicles ultimately sought by 
the transportation companies, and the incremental costs of 
each vehicle purchased, compared to the closest gasoline- or 
diesel-powered model. However, based on the estimated 
cost data provided, a total of five CNG vehicles would be 
purchased. 



Airport 
Matching Fluids: 

Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



None. 

Indirect costs would be waived in order to maximize use of 
grant funds on direct services. 

1. Mr. Hooson reports that the Airport has selected five 
vehicles under two transportation operators for the 
demonstration project (See Attachment). These two 
operators would purchase, operate, and maintain the 
vehicles to be funded by this program. The two operators 
would also compile vehicle maintenance histories and 
provide the data to the Airport. The two transportation 
companies would be required to participate in audits that, 
if deemed necessary, would be conducted by the .Airport and 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



16 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



the BAAQMD to verify the companies' compliance with 
grant's guidelines. 

2. The Airport's Commission has prepared a Disability 
Access Checklist, which is on file with the Clerk of the 
Board's Office. 

3. The Airport's Americans with Disabilities (ADA) 
Coordinator reports that the project as proposed is in 
compliance with (a) the Americans with Disabilities Act 
and (b) with all other Federal, State and local access laws 
and regulations. 

4. Item 5, File 00-0080, and Item 6, File 00-0081, of this 
report to the Finance and Labor Committee also pertain to 
two other Airport grants related to the acquisition of CNG 
vehicles at the Airport. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Attachment 



1— 1 


u 


u 


I/, 


G 


C 


Eh 


G 



— fN 



= > 

6 £ 






n 2 o 

5 ^ 



to s 

= = < 



c __ 





■— 






-5 i» 










— c 




D 
















3 "3 










u -a 


< 




















3 


U 


_; 




■= "° 




C 


< 




>N - 




ti 


s- 






E 





c 


z 





18 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 00-0080 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Grant Period: 
Description: 



Airport 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept 
and expend a grant in the amount of $90,000 from the Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) for 
acquisition of heavy duty compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 
Vehicles. The heavy duty vehicles referred to in this grant 
are medium-sized buses that seat approximately 15 to 30 
passengers. The vehicles weigh more than 10,000 pounds 
gross vehicle weight. 

$90,000 

Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) administered by 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 

January 2000 - May 2000 

The Airport CNG Scheduled Vehicle Project - Heavy Duty 
Vehicles is a demonstration project to encourage companies 
that transport persons to and from the Airport to replace a 
portion of their gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles with 
clean Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles. The 
demonstration project would provide funds to 
transportation companies operating at the Airport that 
have not previously operated CNG vehicles to subsidize the 
incremental cost of CNG vehicles over gasoline- and diesel- 
powered vehicles. 

According to the Airport, the demonstration project would 
reduce pollution on Airport roadways and throughout the 
region and represents an innovative and cost-effective use 
of TFCA funds. If the demonstration is successful, the 
Airport anticipates that transportation companies will use 
their own funds to purchase additional CNG vehicles. The 
demonstration project would also help assess CNG vehicle 
performance in scheduled transportation near the Airport . 
In addition, the project will help indicate the marketing 
potential for clean fuel vehicles. 

The grant would provide partial funds to replace two heavy 
duty gasoline- or diesel-powered buses with two dedicated 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



19 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



CNG buses. The funds provided by the BAAQMD would 
cover the difference in the cost between gasoline- or diesel- 
powered vehicles and the CNG vehicles. This grant would 
allow participating transportation companies to purchase 
an estimated two CNG vehicles at regular gasoline- or 
diesel-powered vehicle prices. The transportation 
companies would supplement the grant funds they receive 
in order to cover the entire cost of the new CNG vehicles. 
This grant provides approximately 42.9 percent, or $90,000, 
of the total cost of the two CNG vehicles. The grant 
recipients would provide the balance of 57.1 percent, or 
$120,000, of the total cost of $210,000 for the two CNG 
vehicles. (See Attachment for details.) 

One transportation company, Bauer Transport Service, has 
provided the Airport with a letter of intent to participate in 
the demonstration project, and has provided specific 
information on the gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, 
which the company plans to replace in exchange for CNG 
vehicles. The Airport would administer the grant, disburse 
BAAQMD funds to participating transportation companies, 
and monitor the project. 

According to Mr. Roger Hooson of the Airport, an important 
component of this demonstration project is the CNG fueling 
station at the Airport's Ground Transportation Staging 
Area, located near the U.S. 101 Millbrae Avenue 
interchange. The Airport awarded a lease to a private firm, 
Trillium USA, to build and operate the CNG fueling station 
facility. This fueling station became operational in June of 
1999 and is accessible to any of the Airport's contracted and 
permitted transportation companies providing 

transportation to and from the Airport. These services 
include door-to-door vans, scheduled vehicles, taxis and the 
Caltrain-SFO Shuttle. Under the terms of its lease with the 
Airport. Trillium USA pays the Airport three percent of its 
gross revenues, or a minimum of $569 monthly ($6828 
annually), whichever is greater. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



Estimated Costs 

(Estimates are based on the incremental increased cost of a 
CNG fueled vehicle compared to a conventional fueled 
vehicle - See Attachment for details) 


Per 30 Passenger 
Vehicle 


$40,000 x 2 vehicles 


$80,000 


Reserved for Increased Costs 
(Retained by BAAQMD if not needed) 


$10,000 


Net Total Budget for Grant: 


$90,000 



To supplement the BAAQMD grant, the grant recipient 
would pay the balance of $120,000 of the estimated total 
cost of $210,000 for the two CNG vehicles. 

Mr. Hooson advises that all costs under this grant are 
capital costs, and 100 percent of the funds would be used 
toward the purchase of the two CNG vehicles. The actual 
amount paid by the BAAQMD will depend in the number 
and type of the CNG vehicles ultimately sought by the 
transportation company, and the incremental costs of each 
vehicle purchased, compared to the closest gasoline- or 
diesel-powered model. However, based on the estimated 
cost data provided, an estimated total of two CNG vehicles 
would be purchased. 



Airport 
Matching Funds: 

Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



None. 

Indirect costs would be waived in order to maximize use of 
grant funds on direct services. 

1. Mr. Hooson reports that the Airport has selected two 
vehicles operated by one transportation company, Bauer 
Transport Service, for the demonstration project (See 
Attachment). The participating scheduled transportation 
firm will purchase, operate, and maintain the vehicles to be 
funded by this program. The firm will also compile vehicle 
maintenance histories and provide the data to the Airport. 
The transportation company will participate in audits that, 
if deemed necessary, may be conducted by the Airport and 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



21 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



the BAAQMD to verify the company's compliance with 
grant guidelines. 

2. The Airport Commission has prepared a Disability 
Access Checklist, which is on file with the Clerk of the 
Board's Office. 

3. The Airport's Americans with Disabilities (ADA) 
Coordinator reports that the project as proposed is in 
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
with all other Federal, State and local access laws and 
regulations. 

4. Item 4, File 00-0079, and Item 6, File 00-0081, of this 
report to the Finance and Labor Committee also pertain to 
two other Airport grants related to the acquisition of CNG 
vehicles at the Airport. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Attachment 



Z 2 



3 6 

CQ CO 



23 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 6 - File 00-0081 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Grant Period: 
Description: 



Airport 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept 
and expend a grant in the amount of $810,000 from the Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for 
acquisition of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) shuttle 
vehicles. Shuttle vehicles vary in size and seat 
approximately 15 to 30 passengers. These shuttles 
transport persons between the Airport and hotels or 
parking facilities. 

$810,000 

Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) administered by 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 

January 2000 - May 2001 

The Airport Clean Fuel Courtesy Shuttle Demonstration 
Project is a demonstration project to encourage Airport 
hotel and private parking lot courtesy shuttle bus operators 
to replace a portion of their gasoline- and diesel-powered 
vehicles with clean Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 
vehicles. The demonstration project would provide funds to 
make it more affordable for shuttle bus operators to 
purchase CNG vehicles. 

According to the Airport, the demonstration project would 
reduce pollution on Airport roadways and throughout the 
region and represents an innovative and cost-effective use 
of TFCA funds. The demonstration project would also help 
assess CNG vehicle performance in high frequency, stop- 
and-start. courtesy shuttle service around the Airport. The 
demonstration project would initiate the multi-year 
replacement of hotel conventional fuel courtesy shuttle 
vehicles, estimated by the Airport to number 130 vehicles 
in total, with clean fuel vehicles, and would demonstrate 
whether similar replacement is feasible for parking lot 
shuttle vehicles. 

The demonstration project would complement a proposed 
Airport initiative to charge triple Airport access fees to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



24 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



hotels that acquire new conventional fuel shuttle vehicles 
into Airport service starting in 2000. The current access fee 
to Airport terminal facilities for hotel shuttle vehicles is 
$1.60 per trip. Beginning July 1, 2000, the access fee will 
increase to $1.75 per trip, and the Airport will begin 
tripling this fee to a total of $5.25 per trip for new 
conventional fuel shuttles. Airport fees for access of vehicles 
to Airport terminal locations are not subject to approval by 
the Board of Supervisors. 

The grant would provide partial funding to purchase 22 
CNG vehicles servicing various hotels and one off-Airport 
parking facility. The grant provides approximately 28.7 
percent, or $810,000, of the total cost of the 22 CNG 
vehicles. The grant recipients would provide the balance of 
approximately 71.3 percent, or $2,010,000, of the estimated 
total cost of $2,820,000 for 22 the CNG vehicles. The 
Attachment to this report, provided by the Airport, contains 
a list of the seven grant recipients servicing hotels and the 
parking facility that would receive funding under the 
proposed demonstration project, along with the proposed 
allocation for each and the number of CNG fuel vehicles 
being acquired. Because hotel shuttle consolidation or 
comparable trip reduction is also required to avoid the 
higher access fees discussed above, the 22 new CNG 
vehicles are expected to replace approximately 30 current 
conventional fuel vehicles, thereby further reducing fuel 
emissions. 

Six hotels providing shuttle services, the SFO Airporter, 
and one off-Airport parking lot operator have provided the 
Airport with a letters of intent to participate in the 
demonstration project, and have provided specific 
information on the gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles 
which the companies plan to replace in exchange for CNG 
vehicles. The Airport would administer the grant, disburse 
BAAQMD funds to participating transportation companies, 
and monitor the project. 

According to Mr. Roger Hooson of the Airport, an important 
component of this demonstration project, not requiring 
BAAQMD funds, is the CNG fueling station at the Airport's 
Ground Transportation Staging Area, located near the U.S. 
101 Millbrae Avenue interchange. The Airport awarded a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



lease to a private firm, Trillium USA, to build and operate 
the CNG fueling station facibty. This fueling station 
became operational in June of 1999 and is accessible to any 
of the Airport's contracted and permitted transportation 
companies that provide transportation to and from the 
Airport. These services include door-to-door vans, scheduled 
vehicles, taxis and the Caltrain-SFO Shuttle. Under the 
terms of its lease with the Airport, Trillium USA pays the 
Airport three percent of its gross revenues, or a minimum 
of $569 monthly ($6,828 annually), whichever is greater. 



Estimated Grant Amounts 

(Estimates are based on the incremental increased cost of 
a CNG fueled vehicle compared to a conventional fueled 
vehicle - See Attachment for details.) 


Per Vehicle 


$45,000 x 13 vehicles 


$585,000 


Per Vehicle 


$25,000 x 9 vehicles 


$225,000 


Total Budget for Grant: 


$810,000 



The grant recipients would pay an estimated $2,010,000 for 
the 22 CNG fueled vehicles, for a total cost of $2,820,000. 

Mr. Hooson advises that all costs under this grant are 
capital costs, and 100 percent of the funds would be used 
toward the purchase of 22 CNG vehicles. The actual 
amount paid by the BAAQMD will depend in the number 
and type of the CNG vehicles ultimately acquired by the 
grant recipients, and the incremental costs of each vehicle 
purchased, compared to the closest gasoline- or diesel- 
powered model. However, based on the estimated cost data 
provided, a total of 22 CNG vehicles would be purchased. 



Airport 
Matching Funds: 



None 



Indirect Costs: Indirect costs would be waived in order to maximize use of 

grant funds on direct services. 



Comments: 



1. Mr. Hooson reports that the Airport has selected 22 
vehicles operated by the six hotels, the SFO Airporter. and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



one off-Airport parking facility for the demonstration 
project (See Attachment). Participating companies would 
purchase, operate, and maintain the vehicles to be funded 
by this program. The eight firms would also compile vehicle 
maintenance histories and provide the data to the Airport. 
The eight firms would participate in audits that, if deemed 
necessary, may be conducted by the Airport and the 
BAAQMD to verify the companies' compliance with grant 
guidelines. 

2. According to Mr. Hooson, approximately 190 vehicles are 
currently used for Airport courtesy and parking lot 
shuttles, of which two are powered by CNG fuel. This grant 
would increase the number of CNG shuttles to 
approximately 24 shuttles. 

3. The Airport Commission has prepared a Disability 
Access Checklist, which is on file with the Clerk of the 
Board's Office. 

4. The Airport's Americans with Disabilities (ADA) 
Coordinator reports that the project as proposed is in 
compliance (a) with the Americans with Disabilities Act 
and (b) with all other Federal, State and local access laws 
and regulations. 

5. Item 4, File 00-0079, and Item 5, File 00-0080, of this 
report to the Finance and Labor Committee pertain to two 
other Airport grants related to the acquisition of CNG 
vehicles at the Airport. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Attachment 



o o 



_ 



c 
G 

< - 



| > 



= = o 



£ — ! X 

u • — «- 

22 c — 

5 — ^ 



ci ."J 



5 S " 






28 






Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee 

Items 7 and 8 - Files 99-2261 and 99-2181 

1. File 99-2261 is a hearing to consider the street parking spaces in the 
City. The Attachment to this report, provided by the Department of Parking 
and Traffic (DPT), provides specific information on the number of street 
parking spaces, curb spaces, parking meters and residential permit parking 
and discusses some of the issues regarding street parking in the City. As 
shown on the second page of the Attachment, DPT indicates there are 
310,000 on-street parking spaces in San Francisco. 

2. File 99-2181 is a hearing to consider the cost to the City of painting 
crosswalks and other street markings to guide pedestrians and vehicles 
safely throughout the City, particularly in the Outer Sunset/Parkside areas. 
The Attachment to this report, provided by DPT, outlines the City's traffic 
painting program, maintenance cycles and budget and provides background 
information on crosswalks, and a recent program entitled Parking 
Operations, Signs, Signals and Enforcement (P.O.S.S.E.). 

3. As shown on the first page of the DPT Attachment, there are an 
estimated 7,000 intersections in San Francisco, with approximately 4,500 
designated with crosswalk lines. Of the approximately 4,500 crosswalks, 
3,600 or 80 percent are painted white and 900 or 20 percent are painted 
yellow, designating a school crossing. Ms. Julia Dawson of DPT reports that 
DPT currently has no plans to expand the number of painted crosswalks in 
the City. The Attachment indicates that the existing painted crosswalks are 
on a ten-year cycle for maintenance and repainting. 

4. As noted on the first page of the Attachment, the City's traffic painting 
program and maintenance activities are supported by a $1.5 million yearly 
budget, which covers labor, materials and other costs. According to Ms. 
Dawson, all of these costs are paid with State Road Funds, from Gas Tax 
revenues. Ms. Dawson estimates that the current cost for direct labor and 
materials to paint an average 40 foot crosswalk in a residential area is 
approximately $310. Including overhead and other costs of approximately 22 
percent, or $68, the total estimated cost for installing an average 40 foot 
crosswalk is approximately $378. 

5. According to Mr. Randy Ronning of Caltrans, one potential new 
funding source for the City to consider in using for painting crosswalks and 
other street markings is the Safe Routes to School Program. State legislation 
enacted on October 6, 1999 (AB1475) redirects approximately $20,000,000 
annually on a State-wide basis of Federal Highway Administration safety 
funds from railroad grade crossings and other transportation safety programs 
to a new program entitled "Safe Routes to Schools" (SR2S). The SR2S 



29 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee 

Program aims to reduce pedestrian and bicycle accidents by (a) installing 
warning devices, traffic signals, and new signs, (b) improving visibility, 
crosswalk conditions, and artificial lighting, (c) constructing new bikeways 
and pathways, and (d) widening existing bikeways and pathway- on a route 
to a public or private school which offers classes in kindergarten or grades 1 
through 12. 

6. The SR2S Program will be administered by the State Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans) as a two-year pilot program between February of 
2000 and February of 2002, for a total two-year allocation of $40,000,000 
State-wide. According to Mr. Ronning, since these SR2S Program funds will 
not be allocated on a formula basis, Mr. Ronning cannot estimate the amount 
of funds that the State will allocate to San Francisco from this proposed new 
Program. Mr. Ronning advises that Caltrans district staff will determine 
whether or not a project is eligible for SR2S Program funds, up to a 
maximum of $500,000 per project. According to Mr. Ronning, the standard 
State reimbursement rate under the proposed SR2S Program will be 90 
percent, with the balance of ten percent funding to be provided from local 
funding sources. 

7. Mr. Ronning advises that new State guidelines for the SR2S Program 
will be issued by Caltrans on February 10, 2000. Mr. Ronning indicates that 
the applications for such SR2S Program funds would be due from cities and 
counties throughout the State by April 6, 2000. Since the applicant for these 
funds are cities and counties, approval for acceptance and expenditure of 
such funds would be subject to the Board of Supervisors approval. 

8. Ms. Dawson advises that the DPT will be applying for these SR2S 
funds, when the guidelines and application materials are made available. As 
of the writing of this report, Ms. Dawson could not identify the specific 
projects DPT would apply for SR2S funds to complete. 



30 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 
January 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee 




Hatvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becernl 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



31 



JAN. 20'i)0(TMI 15:09 CITY i. GO OF S. F. PARKING DEPT TEL 415 554 9834 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 5 



HKARING ITEM #1-TRAFFIC STRIPING 

Background: The following table inventories the City's traffic painting program and 
maintenance cycle 1 



Marking *l)|ir L'kynUk Mwiwlfwiirr ( yctt 

lol.il 


Traffic Lane Lines 


650 miles 


12 miles per year ( 15-20 year cycle) 


White Crosswalks (# of intersections) 


36UO 


10% per year (10 year cycle) 


Yellow Crosswalks (# of intersections) 


900 


10% per year (10 year cycle) 


STOP Legend and Bars 


8000 


1 5% per year (6 year cycle) 


White Stencil Messages 


8000 


1 5% per year (6 year cycle) 


SLOW SCHOOL XING Messages 


873 


17% per year (6 year cycle) 


Parking Meter Stalls 


22.000 


23% per year (4 year cycle) 


MUNI Bus Zones 


5300 


10% per year (10 year cycle) 


Red Handicap Ramps 


10.000 


Variable 


Color Curb Zones 


15,000 


50% per year (2 year cycle) 



Th traffic painting program is supported by a SI 5 million yearly budget from the Road Fund, 
which covers labor, materials, and other costs 



In the last 20 years, federal regulations have affected the durability of the industry's standard 
paint. Fourteen years ago, the standard traffic paint was a fast drying, lacquer-based lead paint. 
Since the early 1990's, Clean Air regulations have mandated that this paint be replaced with an 
environmentally friendly waterbome traffic paint Unfortunately, waterbome paint does not 
have the same durability, adhesion, coverage, and curing characteristics as the previous material, 
which makes it more difficult for usage in San Francisco, in our experience, waterbome paint 
has a maximum durability of only about one year. Under heavy traffic conditions, waterbome 
paint can wear out as quickly as a week. It also acts as a poor adhesive for glass beads, which 
means nighttime visibility is often compromised. To address the deficiencies of waterbome 
paint, we are now using two alternative marking materials Thermoplastic and Methacrylate. 
Both materials last at least ten times longer than the waterbome paint (7-15 years depending on 
traffic density). 

Crosswalks: Of the estimated 7,000 intersections in San Francisco, approximately 4.500 are 
designated with crosswalk lines Of these. 3600 have white crosswalks and 900 have yellow 
(school) crosswalks. We do not have painted crosswalks at all intersections because they do not 
have to be painted to give a pedestrian legal protection in crossing the street According to the 
California Vehicle Code a crosswalk exists at an intersection whether or not it is painted and is 
defined as the projection of the sidewalk lines across the street 

There is a body of research that suggests that not painting crosswalks is actually safer for 
pedestrians. The first study was done in San Diego, where for five yeaxs, safety data was 
collected for 400 intersections. At each of these intersections, a crosswalk was painted on only 
one side of the intersection There were five times as many accidents in the painted crosswalks 
There were twice as many pedestrians using the painted crosswalks, but this still means that the 
accident rate for the painted crosswalk was twice that of the unpainted crosswalk The City of 
Los Angeles confirmed these findings in a study two years ago. These counter-inruitive findings 



N. -20' OO(THU) 13:10 



CITY k CO OF S. F. PARKING ULPI 



I LL : 4 1 304 ^804 



r. uuj 
Attachment 
Page 2 of ? 



Report to Supervisor Yee 
January 19, 2000 



Department of Parking and Traffic 



are explained as a false-sense-of-security phenomenon. Pedestrians may be less on-guard within 
a painted crosswalk. As a result, we only recommend painting crosswalks to fulfill a 
channelization function, where we may want to encourage pedestrians to cross at a preferred 
location. This is the reason why many lower volume, lower speed, regularly configured 
intersections, such as those in the Richmond, Sunset, Marina, and Outer Mission, do not have 
marked crosswalks. 

There is some interest in painting "ladder" or "zebra" type crosswalks in San Francisco. These 
are higher visibility pedestrian crossings, such as the mid-block crossing on Dr. Carlton B. 
Goodlett Place, leading from City Hall to the Civic Center plaza These types of crossings are 
more labor- and material-intensive to install. They take ten times longer and require three times 
more material. We have traditionally used these types of markings at the more unexpected 
pedestrian crossings to highlight their location To use them indiscriminately will dilute the 
importance of this marking device. 

P.O.S.S.E. About a year ago, we started a neighborhood walk-through program to 
systematically restore faded signs and painting throughout various neighborhood shopping 
districts. We have given this program the acronym P.O.S.S.E. (Parking Operations, Signs, 
Signals and Enforcement). Once a month, we send a team of DPT personnel to a different 
neighborhood to concentrate on making improvements to that neighborhood. As examples, we 
have gone through Polk Street, 3 rd Street, Mission Street. San Bruno Avenue, Castro Street, 
Valenica Street, Noriega Street, Union Street, Balboa Street, Lakeview Village, and Post Street. 



HEARING ITEM #2— STREET PARKING 

We estimate that there are about 3 1 0,000 on-street parking spaces in San Francisco. The 
following table summarizes the classifications for these spaces. 



I'ynr of Parking Snare Number 


White Zone 


1604 


Green Zone 


399 


Yellow Zone 


4500 


Blue Zone 


500 


Metered Space 


22,000 


Non-metered Space 


280,000 


Total 


310,000 



A question was asked about the number of red zones in San Francisco. This number is difficult 
to quantify because we have different kinds of red zones of varying length throughout San 
Francisco. Some are used to provide proper spacing at metered areas. Many residents, for 
example, apply to the Department of Parking and Traffic to have short red zones painted next to 
their driveway. After we computerize this process, we will be able to provide better accounting 
of our red zone inventory. 



33 



JAN - 'U UU IHU 1 ■ 1 U U I ) l wur o. r. rni\ni.>u uw i i"""" ""'' "" n , ' • v ' 

Attachment 



Page 3 of 5 



Report to Supervisor Yee Department of Parking and Traffic 
January 19,2000 



The City's Traffic Engineering Division has been managing ihc City's color curbs since 1984. 
when jurisdiction was transferred from the Police Commission The Traffic Engineering 
Division created an objective set of criteria for designating new color curbs 

We have made a concerted effort to remove obsolete color zones. For white and green zones, 
these are done in a programmatic way Every two years, these kinds of zones require payment to 
be repainted If the payment is not received, the zone is removed Starting several years ago, 
under policy direction from the Parking and Traffic Commission, we evaluated and removed 
several hundred white zones, especially those at apartment buildings For red zones, we have 
both searched out neighborhoods and responded to residents' complaints about unnecessarily 
long red zones since the mid-80's We have also worked with the Board to shorten the legally 
required red zones at fire hydrants. These efforts have yielded about 200 to 300 parking spaces 
being reverted back to general parking a year. 

Yellow zones arc typically kept current via feedback from our Parking Enforcement personnel or 
by the general public We do not collect fees for yellow zones because they are established on a 
different premise from white and green zones Painting yellow zones is free to encourage 
businesses to apply for yellow zones to cut down on freight-related double-parking To improve 
our management of yellow zones, we have are creating a computerized database of their 
locations. Since yellow zones serve an entire block and not necessarily any specific businesses, 
sometimes it is difficult to verify their need With the P O S S.E. program, we have gained 
tremendous access to the merchants who are in the most position to judge their own needs. For 
example, during the Castro Street walkthrough, the merchants suggested that the loading zones 
need not be full time and that the time limit needs to be adjusted We are currently implementing 
this change 

A further loading zone enhancement is our new Heavy Truck Loading Zone pilot program 
Under this program, we will be creating special zones for larger delivery trucks, such as 
beverage delivery trucks, that weigh more than 20,000 pounds. Under current conditions, these 
vehicles often double park because smaller commercial vehicles may be occupying the yellow 
zones. 

Parking Meters: The attached map shows all the blocks in San Francisco with parking meters 
Parking meters are only installed where there is commercial demand for parking There are 
about 22,000 on-street parking meters in San Francisco. 

Residential Permit Parking: While parking meters are intended to help San Francisco's 
businesses. Residential Permit Parking (RPP) is intended to help its residents Since this 
program started in 1976, it has grown to a total of 23 designated areas in the City At the present 
time, there are two new residential permit parking areas being proposed near the new Pacific Bell 
Ballpark. 

The City's RPP program has always been community-based Residents must collect signatures 
and build consensus about the need for the regulations. It has become an immensely popular 
program, with the City currently issuing over 80,000 permits per year Throughout the duration 
ot the program, there has been only one instance where residents have requested elimination of 



34 



(THl) 1 o : 1U UIM i IU Ur i.r. rHiu\i.\u ucri 1 



LL • 4 1 J OJ' 



Report to Supervisor Yee 
January 19, 2QQQ 



Attachment 
Page 4 of 5 

Department of Parking and Traffic 



the permit parking regulations after they were implemented That one instance involved Area 
"0," which is near Paul Avenue and 3 Street, where a major employer left the area and 
eliminated the source of the parking problem. 

In the last five years, we have submitted a total of 226 RPP-related legislative matters to the 
Board of Supervisors. The year-by-year totals are depicted in the following table: 



Win Will' KIT Anions | 


1995 


20 


1996 


41 


1997 


56 


1998 


49 


1999 


60 



Most of these actions have been in only a few of the residential permit parking areas. The most 
active areas have been Area "S" (Duboce Triangle/Castro), Area "J" (UCSF), and Area "U" 
(South of Market). The most active areas are summarized in the following table, showing the 
number of extensions in the past five years: 



KIT A nil 


l.ociition 


U of liAiciisions r'J5- 


•») 


S 


Duboce Triangle 


47 


J 


UCSF 


40 


u 


South of Market 


30 


i 


Bartlett Street (Inner Mission) 


17 


R 


Cleary Court 


17 


V 


Balboa Park 


17 


w 


SF General Hospital 


16 



We have identified three significant issues with our current RPP program. These issues are (1) 
boundary effects, (2) area size, and (3) enforcement levels. What we mean by "boundary 
effects" are the effects of the residential permit parking regulations to residents who live just 
outside of the permit parking boundary With each permit parking extension, there is a potential 
ripple effect to the next unregulated block. Theoretically, the ripple effect would end when the 
permit parking regulations extend far enough to discourage the original source of the problem- 
the all-day commuter parker-from parking in the neighborhood altogether Until that threshold 
is reached, however, the commuter merely moves to the next block over with each extension 
unless there is a natural boundary, such as a park or a major arterial street. This can make 
parking more difficult for the residents on that block. 

The second significant RPP issue is area boundary size. As noted. Area "S," the Duboce 
Triangle area, has had 47 extensions in the past five years. This area started out as a relatively 
small area near the U.S. Mint and has grown steadily since Area "J," near UCSF has been 
expanding into the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. As these areas grow in size, something can 
happen that works at cross purposes with the intention of the RPP program: residents commuting 



35 



JAN -^U Ul) THU lo ; ll till i wuf i.r. rAKM.\o utri ill-iu jjm 70J4 i . uuu 

Attachment 

Page 5 of 5 

Report lo Supervisor Yee Department of Parking and Traffic 
January 19, 2000 



within an RPP area. Unfortunately, the only way our current program can counteract this would 
be for the residents to petition for a change This, however, is unlikely when the area is too big. 

The third significant RPP issue is enforcement We have received some complaints about the 
level of permit parking enforcement This issue is affected by the expanding permit parking 
areas as well as the permit parking fee The intention of the permit parking program was to 
make it self-supporting, with the collected fees defraying the cost of administration and 
enforcement With limited enforcement personnel, enforcement can only be performed on a 
rotating basis 



36 




City and County of £an Francisco 

Meeting^Minutes 
^Finance and Labor Committee 

y 
Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano 

Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102^1689 



Wednesday, February 02, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



Meeting Convened 



991307 






The meeiuig convened at 10:08 a.m. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

FEB 1 o 2003 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



[Final Negative Declaration, Jobs-Housing Linkage Ordinance] 
Supervisors Teng, Katz 

Resolution adopting Final Negative Declaration, finding and determining that the Jobs-Housing Linkage 
Ordinance will have no significant impact on the environment, and adopting and incorporating findings of 
final negative declaration. (Planning Commission) 

(Final Negative Declaration adopted and issued on April 27, 1999; companion measure to File 991304.) 
6/30/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Housing and Social Policy Committee. Companion measure to File 991304 
1/12/00, TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Consideration continued to February 9, 2000. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst: 
Gerald Green, Director, Planning Department: Supervisor Ammiano: Supenisor Yee. Supervisor Katz 
requested to be added as sponsor. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 4:4S PSI on 2 i (Hi 



finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



I ehruary 2, 2000 



991304 (Planning Code amendment Co rename "Office Affordable Housing Production Program" as the "Jobs- 
Housing Linkage Program" and to apply the program to hotel, entertainment, and retail space 
according to square footage] 
Supervisors Teng, Katz 

Ordinance amending Planning Code by amending Sections 313, 313.1, 313.2, 313.3, 313.4, 313.5, 313.6, 
3 13.7, 3 13.8, 3 1 3.9, 313.10, 313.11, 31 3.12, 3 1 3. 1 3, and 313 14. and by adding Section 3 1 3. 15, to rename the 
"Office Affordable Housing Production Program" as the "Jobs-Housing Linkage Program," to apply the 
program to all new and expanded hotel space of at least 25,000 square feet, to all new and expanded 
entertainment space of at least 50,000 square feet, and to all new and expanded retail space of at least 100,000 
square feet, and by amending Section 314.1 of the childcarc ordinance to conform to the new definition of 
"hotel." (Planning Department) 

(Amends Sections 313, 313.1, 313.2. 313 3, 313 4. 313 5. 313 6, 313 7. 313.8. 313.9, 313.10, 313.1 1. 313.12. 

313.13, 313.14, 314.1; adds Section 313.15; Final Negatisc Declaration dated April 27. 1999; Planning 

Commission Resolution No. 14832 adopted June 3. 1999 recommending proposed amendments to the 

Planning Code ) 

(, 30 99, HI I i\ I D AND ASSIGN! Dto Housing and S IDREQUIRJ I) HI FORE ITEM IS 

SCHI DULED. 

1/12/00, TRANSFERRED to Finance and I abor Commiltce 

Heard m Committee Consideration continued to February 9, 2000 Speakers Harvey Ruse Budget Analyst, 
Gerald Green, Director, Planning Department. Supervisor Ammiano, Supervisor Yee Supervisor Katz 

requested to he added as sponsor. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000063 [Reducing the City Attorney's Cash Revolving Fund from S10.000 to S8.000. consistent with the 
recommendations of the Controller's Audit Division] 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code Section 10.136 to reduce the amount of money authorized to be in 
the City Attorney's Cash Revolving Fund from S10.000 to $8,000. (City Attorney) 
1/7/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and I abor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers Han ey Rose. Budget Analyst, Ed Harrington. Controller. Supervisor 
Ted Lakey. Deputy City Attorney 
RECOMMENDED by the following Note: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000064 (Eliminating the Cash Revolving Fund of the Bureau of Claims of the C ii\ Attornc> s Office, consistent 
with the recommendations of the Controller's Audit Division.! 

Ordinance repealing Administrative Code Section 10.136-1 to eliminate the Cash Revolving Fund of the 
Bureau of Claims of the Office of the City Attorney. (City Attorney) 
1/7/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers: Haney Rose. Budget Analyst; Ed Harrington. Controller; Supervisor Yee. 
Ted Lakey. Deputy City Attorney 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 4:41 P\f on 2 4 <H) 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



February 2, 2000 



000065 [DHS appropriation request to hire five (5) new employees to fund data base of fingerprint and photo 
images of persons applying/receiving benefits from CalWORKS and food stamp program to reduce 
fraud] 

Ordinance appropriating $120,840 of State and Federal Revenue to fund salaries, fringe benefits, training, 
other current expenses, materials and supplies, and for the creation of five (5) positions to operate the new 
State-mandated Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS) for the Department of Human Services for fiscal 
year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Companion measure to File 000066) 

1/10/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst; Sally Kipper, Department of Human Services. 

Amended title , line 1 to reduce amount of appropriation to $102, 155; page 2, line 12 to reduce CFIS to 

$1 19,984; page 3, line 5 to reduce the Debit and Credit totals to SI 02, 155; page 3, line 17 to reduce the 

amount to $44,434; page 3, line 19 to reduce the amount to $1 1, 153; page 3, line 23 to reduce the amount to 

$10,374; page 3, line 25 to reduce the amount to $2,604; page 4, line 1 1 to reduce the Debit and Credit totals 

to $102,155; page 4, line 19 to make two of the three 1426 positions 1426 Impositions and retain one 1426N 

position, ^age 4, line 25, add notation that all five new positions begin April 1, 2000 . 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance appropriating 5102,155 of State and Federal Revenue to fund salaries, fringe benefits, training, 
other current expenses, materials and supplies, and for the creation of five (5) positions to operate the new 
State-mandated Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS) for the Department of Human Services for fiscal 
year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Companion measure to File 000066) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000066 [Amending 1999-2000 Annual Salary Ordinance to create 5 new positions (4 Class 1426 Senior Clerk 
Typists and 1 Class 2912 Senior Social Worker) for DHS.] 

Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 209-99 (Annual Salary Ordinance, 1999/2000) reflecting the creation of 
five (5) positions for the Department of Human Services. (Department of Human Services) 

(Companion measure to File 000067) 

1/10/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst; Sally Kipper, Department of Human Services 
Amended line 10 to make two of the three 1426 positions 1426 L positions and retain one 1 426N position; line 
16, add notation that all five new positions begin April I, 2000 . 
AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 4:42 PM on 2 4.00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



February 2, 2000 



000082 (Appropriation in the amount of $22,950,547 from Bonds proceeds and interest earnings to fund the 
reconstruction and relocation of the Asian Art Museum] 

Ordinance appropriating $22,950,547 proceeds from the sale of Bonds and interest income ($1,737,669 of 
1989 Earthquake Safety Bond Interest, $4,452,462 Asian Art Relocation Project Bond Series 1996 Interest and 
$16,760,416 Asian Art Relocation Project Bond Series 1999 Bond Proceeds) for the reconstruction of the 
former Public Library and the relocation of the Asian Art Museum. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

1/12/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance nd Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst Ikuko Satuda Chief Financial Officer, Asian Art 

Museum Amended title line I to reduce amount to $22, 943, ^5f> and line 3 to reduce bondpTOi eeds to 

$16, 753,625. page 2. line 24, to reduce amount amount to $16, 753,625, page 3, line (>. to reduce debit and 

amounts to SI 3,209; and line 16 to reduce credit amount to $16. 753.625 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance appropriating $22,943,756 proceeds from .he sale of Bonds and interest income ($1,737,669 of 
1989 Earthquake Safely Bond Interest, $4. 452. 462 Asian Art Relocation Project Bond Series 1996 Interest and 
$16,753,625 Asian Art Relocation Project Bond Series 1999 Bond Proceeds) for the reconstruction of the 
former Public Library and the relocation of the Asian An Museum. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED b> the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000094 |Reserved Funds, Mayor's Office of Community Development! 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Mayor's Office of Community Development (1999 Community 
Development Block Grant: Resolution No. 90-99 Budget) in the amount of $100,000 to be allocated to the San 
Francisco Housing Authority for its Census 2000/TURF project. (Mayor) 
1/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Consideration continued to February 9. 2000. Speakers Ken Bruce. Budget Analyst. 
Pam David, Director, Mayor's Office of Community Development , Buddy Choy. Deputy Administrator. 
Housing Authority; Dan Fang. City Census Liaison. City Administrator's Office; Supervism 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000095 [Reserved Funds. Department of Public Health | 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Department of Public Health (Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Budget) in 
the amount of $50,000 to fund an actuarial cost analysis to implement the San Francisco Methadone by 
Prescription Program (MPP). (Department of Public Health) 
l/l 1/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers, Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst. Anne Okubo. Department of Public Health 
Department to select contractor and submit contract cost details prior to release of reserve. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee. Bierman, Ammiano 



SPECIAL ORDER - 11:00 A.M. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 4:42 #».Vf on 1/4.00 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes February 2, 2000 



000045 [Authorizing the PTC General Manager to execute an agreement with Intelitran as a new paratransit 
broker to perform many important functions and to act as the principal customer service representative 
for paratransit services on behalf of PTC] 

Resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors to approve a Paratransit Broker Agreement with Comsis 
Mobility Services, Inc., dba Intelitran for an amount not to exceed $66,420,375 for a term of five years. 
(Public Transportation Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

1/5/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the January 26, 

2000 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst; Michael Burns, Director, Department of 
Transportation; Annette Williams, Department of Transportation; Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Ammiano; 
Supervisor Newsom; Kathy Knox, Vice President, Public Transportation Commission; Jim Long, CEO and 
President, Intelitran; Supervisor Yee; Mark Soto, Local Manager, Intelitran; Regina Cerenio, Cerino 
Management Group; male speaker; Rosemaiy Dady, Bay Area Ligal Aid; Sergio Altaian, Chairperson, 
Paratransit Coordinating Council; Lorie Hodas, member, second contract review group; August Longo. 
Chair, Franklin D. Roosevelt Democratic Club; Wayne Sherman; Bob Planthold reading statement for Luis 
Calderor; Gilda Chico, CCB; Elizabeth Dunlop; Peggy Coster; Claudia Boudreau, Golden Gate Regional 
Center; male speaker; Enid Lim, paratransit user; Mr. Loniski; Ina Aloha; Helen Marte Bautista; John King, 
senior service provider; Paul Cecil; Yakov Krakovsky; Darrik Lam, Commission on Aging; Inna Blevkinder; 
Bill Sorro, Community Advocate for Seniors; Kathy Davis; Thomas Campbell; Helen Lee, Self Help for the 
Elderly; Filemon Mordeno, Veteran; Erma Brim, Paratransit Coordinating Council member; Jeanne Lynch, 
Paratransit Coordinating Council member; male speaker; male speaker, Paratransit Broker's Office; male 
speaker; Walter Park, Mayor's Office of Disability; Mike, Delancy Street. Amended to correct title, page I, 
line 2 to delete the words "requesting the Board of Supervisors to approve" and to add "approving"; line 4 to 
reduce amount to $66,333,277 to delete COLA amount; page 2, line 17 to reduce amount to $66,333,277. 
AMENDED. 

Resolution approving a Paratransit Broker Agreement with Comsis Mobility Services, Inc., dba Intelitran for 
an amount not to exceed $66,333,277 for a term of five years. (Public Transportation Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

REFERRED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 12:57 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 5 Printed at 4:42 PM on h'4/00 



o.&f- 



i/co 



Susan Horn 

Government Documents Section 
Main Library 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



^BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



January 27, 2000 



TO: «. Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: budget Analyst 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
FEB 2 2000 



SUBJECT: .February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Items 1 and 2 - Files 99-1304 and 99-1307 



Departments: 



Item: 



Department of Building Inspection (DBI) 
Mayor's Office of Housing 
Planning Department 

File 99-1304 

Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter II, Part II of the 
Planning Code by amending Sections 313 and 313.1 to 
313.14, and by adding Section 313.15, to rename the 
"Office Affordable Housing Production Program" as the 
"Jobs-Housing Linkage Program" and to apply that 
program to large-scale hotel, entertainment, and retail 
developments, and by amending Section 314.1 of the 
Childcare Ordinance to conform to the new definition of 
"hotel". 

File 99-1307 

Resolution adopting the final negative declaration that 
the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program will have no 
significant impact on the environment, and adopting and 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

incorporating the findings of the final negative 
declaration. 

Description: By attracting additional employees to the City, large-scale 

commercial developments increase the demand for 
affordable housing, according to Ms. Catherine Bauman of 
the Planning Department. Therefore, the City currently 
requires the developers of office developments which 
exceed 25,000 square feet to mitigate those developments' 
impact on the demand for affordable housing in one of 
three ways. The office developers can either (a) build 
affordable housing units 1 which are to remain affordable 
for 50 years, (b) pay an m-lieu fee to the Citywide 
Affordable Housing Fund based on a current rate of $7.05 
per square foot of new office space, or (c) pay the same 
amount to housing developers to build affordable housing 
units on their behalf. 

The ordinance as amended (File 99-1304) would: 

• Expand the coverage of the Jobs-Housing Linkage 
Program from office development projects of at least 
25,000 square feet to also include other large-scale 
commercial development projects, which are defined as 
(a) all new and expanded hotel space of at least 25,000 
square feet, (b) all new and expanded entertainment 
space of at least 50,000 square feet, and (c) all new and 
expanded retail space of at least 100,000 square feet. 

• Permit a commercial property developer to contribute 
land for affordable housing developments in lieu of the 
other mitigation payment options. The amount of land 
contributed would be determined by its value, which 
must be commensurate with the value of the other 
mitigation payment options. 

The proposed final negative declaration (File 99-1307) 
was prepared by the Planning Department following 
public review of the preliminary negative declaration it 
issued on April 3, 1999. The Planning Department found 
that there was no substantial evidence that the Jobs- 



1 "Affordable housing units" refer to residential dwellings in housing projects which may have one. 
two. three, or four bedrooms. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Housing Linkage Program would have a significant effect 
on the environment. 

Comments: 1. The subject ordinance as amended would only apply to 

individual commercial property developments which 
exceed the following thresholds: (a) 25,000 square feet for 
office developments, (b) 25,000 square feet for hotel 
developments, (c) 50,000 square feet for entertainment 
developments, and (d) 100,000 square feet for retail 
developments. The subject ordinance does not apply to 
individual commercial property developments which 
occupy less space, according to Ms. Bauman. 

2. According to Mr. Andrew Schwartz of the City 
Attorney's Office, the developer of a commercial property 
which exceeded the square footage thresholds listed above 
could comply with the ordinance as amended by either (a) 
constructing themselves, or (b) contributing money, or 
land of equivalent value, to a developer to construct on 
their behalf, at least the following number of affordable 
housing units which are to remain affordable for 50 years: 

• 11 affordable housing units for each 100,000 square 
feet of new hotel development; 

• 14 affordable housing units for each 100,000 square 
feet of new entertainment development; 

• 14 affordable housing units for each 100,000 square 
feet of new retail development; and 

• 16.1 affordable housing units for 100,000 square feet of 
new office development. 

3. Mr. Schwartz further states that a developer of a 
commercial property which exceeded the square footage 
thresholds could alternatively comply with the ordinance 
as amended through payment of an in-lieu fee to the 
Citywide Affordable Housing Fund which is administered 
by the Planning Department. The amount of the in-lieu 
fee, which would be subject to annual review 2 , would be 
based on: 



2 Effective January 1 of each year, the m-lieu fee formula would be automatically revised by the 
percentage increase or decrease in the Average Area Purchase Price Safe Harbor Limitations for 
New Single-Family Residences for the San Francisco Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA 
prepared by the Internal Revenue Service. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



• $4.25 per square foot of new hotel development; 

• $5.29 per square foot of new entertainment 
development; 

• $5.29 per square foot of new retail development; and 

• $7.05 per square foot of new office development. 

4. According to Ms. Bauman. most office developers 
currently choose to pay the m-lieu fee rather than build 
the required number of affordable housing units 
themselves or contract with a developer to build the 
required affordable housing units on their behalf. The m- 
lieu fee revenue is held in the Citywide Affordable 
Housing Fund administered by the Planning Department 
which provides loans to affordable housing developers, 
subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, 
according to Mr. Joe LaTorre of thi- Mayor's Office of 
Housing. Mr LaTorre states that the Mayor's Office of 
Housing makes recommendations to the Director of 
Planning as to which proposed affordable housing 
developments are in conformity with the subject 
legislation and the City's overall goals for housing 
development and which, therefore, are eligible to receive 
development loans from the Citywide Affordable Housing 
Fund and other funding sources. There is no stipulated 
maximum amount for development loans from the 
Citywide Affordable Housing Fund, according to Mr. 
LaTorre. 

5. As stated above, developers of office developments 
which exceed 25,000 square feet currently have three 
options to mitigate the impact of their developments on 
affordable housing. They can either (a) build affordable 
housing units which are to remain affordable for 50 years, 
(b) pay an m-lieu fee to the Citywide Affordable Housing 
Fund based on a current rate of ST. 05 per square foot of 
new office space, or (c) pay the same amount to housing 
developers to build affordable housing units on their 
behalf. 

Under the ordinance as amended, the developers of 
commercial property developments which exceed the 
square footage thresholds listed in Comment No. 1 above 
would also be permitted to contribute land for affordable 
housing developments in lieu of the other mitigation 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



payment options so long as the value of the land is equal 
to the in-lieu fee formula set out in Comment No. 2 above. 
Mr. Schwartz advises that valuation and acceptance of 
land would be subject to the approval of the Planning 
Department and the Mayor's Office of Housing, as part of 
their discussions with the commercial property developer 
and the housing developer. Mr. Schwartz states that the 
proposed amendments to the subject ordinance do not 
specify how land values would be determined or by whom. 

The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that the 
proposed amendments to the subject ordinance include, in 
the case of mitigation payment options which involve- 
developer land contributions, a requirement that land 
values should be determined by an independent appraisal 
to be conducted by a qualified property appraiser selected 
by the City and compensated by the developer. 

6. Adoption of the proposed ordinance would result in 
increased revenues that would accrue to the Citywide 
Affordable Housing Fund or other benefits such as 
increased affordable housing units built by developers or 
increased contributions of land or money to affordable 
housing developers. As noted previously, most developers 
of office developments in excess of 25,000 square feet have 
historically chosen to pay the in-lieu fee rather than build 
the required number of affordable housing units 
themselves, or pay a housing developer to do so on their 
behalf. 

The actual revenue benefit to the Citywide Affordable 
Housing Fund which would result from adoption of this 
proposed ordinance would depend on the amount of new 
hotel, entertainment and retail development that would 
be subject to the new fees. According to Ms. Bauman, the 
Planning Department projects that for the ten years 
between 2000 and 2010 there will be (a) 5,492,000 square 
feet of new hotel development, and (b) 4,012,407 square 
feet of new entertainment and retail development. The 
total projected increase in such commercial property 
would be 9,504,407 square feet. 

The table below, based on the projections provided by the 
Planning Department, shows the potential maximum 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



amount of new revenue that would accrue to the Citywide 
Affordable Housing Fund if (a) all of the projected square 
footage is actually constructed, (b) if all of the projected 
square footage is located in commercial property 
developments which exceed the square footage thresholds 
listed in Comment No. 1 above, (c) none of the 
developments are exempted under the subject ordinance 3 , 
and (d) all of the commercial developers choose to pay an 
m-lieu fee instead of either building affordable housing 
themselves or contributing money or land of an equivalent 
value to affordable housing developers. 



Potential Maximum New Citywide Affordable Housing Fund Revenue 
Based on Planned Commercial Development Activity 2000 - 2010 











Total Revenue 








In-lieu Fee Per 


to Citvwide 


Type of 


No. 


of Square 


Square Foot of 


Affordable 


Development 




Feet 


Development 4 


Housing Fund 


Hotel 




5 l'.»2,000 


$4.25 


$23,341,000 


Entertainment/ 




4.012.407 


$5.29 


21.225.633 


Retail 










Total 




9,504,407 




I 14.566,633 



Should all of the above-listed planned new square footage 
be constructed as part of commercial property 
developments which exceed the square footage thresholds 
of the subject ordinance as amended but do not fall within 
its permitted exemptions, then the Citywide Affordable 
Housing Fund would realize additional in-lieu fees in the 
projected amount of $44,566,633 over the ten years 
between 2000 and 2010, or the City would receive 
equivalent value through construction of affordable 
housing units or the contribution of money or land to 



3 The ordinance currently exempts commercial property developments on land that is owned by 
Federal or State governments, or under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 
or the Port Authority. The ordinance as amended would further exempt Mission Bay redevelopment 
projects when application of the ordinance as amended would be inconsistent with the Mission Bay 
North Redevelopment Plan and Interagency Cooperation Agreement or the Mission Bay South 
Redevelopment Plan and Interagency Cooperation Agreement. 

4 The in-lieu fee would only be applied to those commercial property developments which meet the 
threshold size requirements described in Comment No. 1. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

affordable housing developers in an amount equivalent to 
the value of such affordable housing units. 

Ms. Bauman states, however, that the high square 
footage thresholds specified by the subject ordinance, in 
combination with the subject ordinance's permitted 
exemptions, make it highly unlikely that in-lieu fee 
revenues would be as high as those indicated in the table 
above. However, if only 50 percent of the projected new 
development is subject to the in-lieu fee, total revenue to 
the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund would exceed 
$22,000,000 over the next ten years. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the subject ordinance to include, in the case of 

mitigation payment options which involve developer land 
contributions, a requirement that land values should be 
determined by an independent appraisal to be conducted 
by a qualified property appraiser selected by the City and 
compensated by the developer. 

2. Approval of this proposed legislation is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 3 and 4 - Files 00-0063 and 00-0064 



Department: 
Items: 



Description: 



City Attorney 

File 00-0063: Ordinance amending Section 10.136 
of the San Francisco Administrative Code to reduce 
the amount of money authorized to be in the City 
Attorney's Cash Revolving Fund from $10,000 to 
$8,000. 

File 00-0064: Ordinance repealing Section 10.136-1 
of the San Francisco Administrative Code to 
eliminate the Claims Cash Revolving Fund of the 
City Attorneys Office. 

The two proposed ordinances are in response to 
recommendations made on December 16, 1999, by 
the Audits Division of the Controller's Office, after 
the completion of audits of these two City Attorney 
Funds by the Audits Division. 

Specifically, the proposed ordinance (File 00-0063) 
would reduce the amount of money in the City 
Attorney's Cash Revolving Fund from $10,000 to 
$8,000, a reduction of $2,000. The City Attorney 
uses the Cash Revolving Fund to pay for such 
operating expenses as jury fees, witness fees, 
transcript fees and other minor case-related 
expenses. The Controller's Office made their 
recommendation to reduce the amount in this Fund 
because they found that the average monthly 
expenditure over a 12-month period was $2,660. 
Therefore, the Controller's Office found that the 
$10,000 amount was excessive and that $8,000 
would be sufficient to meet the operational needs of 
the City Attorney's Office. 

The other proposed ordinance (File 00-0064) would 
eliminate the Claims Cash Revolving Fund in the 
City Attorney's Office. According to Sections 10.20- 
9 and 10.22-2 of the City's Administrative Code, 
the City Attorney may pay and settle any claim 
and judgement against the City, if the amount does 
not exceed $25,000. The City Attorney has 
historically used the Claims Cash Revolving Fund 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



to make payments for claims and judgments 
against the City of $25,000 or less. According to the 
Audits Division of the Controller's Office, as of 
September 28, 1999, the Fund balance in the 
Claims Cash Revolving Fund exceeded the 
$100,000 authorized in the City's Administrative 
Code by $2,989. Furthermore, the Controller's 
Office found that the City Attorney had not used 
the Claims Cash Revolving Fund since July 9, 1998 
because the City Attorney's Office now pays claims 
and judgments through direct payments using on- 
line FAMIS. Therefore, the Controller's Office 
recommended that the City Attorney's Office 
eliminate this Claims Cash Revolving Fund. 

Mr. Tim Armistead of the Bureau of Claims in the 
City Attorney's Office reports that with the 
implementation of the Controller's on-line FAMIS 
for paying judgments and claims, the City 
Attorney's Office no longer needs the Claims Cash 
Revolving Fund. According to Mr. Armistead, there 
should be no fiscal impacts from the elimination of 
the Claims Cash Revolving Fund. Ms. Martie 
Moore also reports that the reduction of the Cash 
Revolving Fund from $10,000 to $8,000 should 
have no fiscal impact on the City Attorney's 
operations. 



Recommendations: Approve the proposed ordinances. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 5 and 6 • Files 00-0065 and 00-0066 



Department: 
Items: 



Department of Human Services (DHS) 

File 00-0065: Ordinance appropriating $120,840 of 
State and Federal revenues to fund salaries, fringe 
benefits, training, other current expenses, 
materials and supplies and for the creation of five 
new positions to operate the new State-mandated 
Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS). 

File 00-0066: Ordinance amending the FY 1999- 
2000 Annual Salary Ordinance reflecting the 
creation of five new positions for the Department of 
Human Services. 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Budget: 



$120,840 

As shown in th»- Attachment to this report, 
$138,669 of the funding for the proposed 
supplemental is from SFIS, the State Fingerprint 
Imaging System, with the remainder of the funds 
provided through reallocations of individual State 
and Federal Program overhead rates. 

A budget for the period from March 1, 2000 
through June 30. 2000 is as follows: 



Permanent Salaries 
Mandatory Fringe Benefit - 
Subtotal 



$69 

17.505 
$87,250 



Training 

Other Current Expenses 
Materials and Supplies 
Total 



5,000 

5,100 

23.490 

$120,840 



Description: 



In 1999, the State Legislature approved a new law 
mandating that all counties implement a Statewide 
Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS), as a welfare 
fraud detection and prevention program for 
CalWORKs and Food Stamp programs ("Welfare 
and Institutions Code Section 10830). Under the 
proposed SFIS. a database of fingerprint and photo 
images of persons applying for or already receiving 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

welfare benefits would be created and this database 
of information would be linked with all 58 counties 
in California. The proposed new SFIS is intended to 
prevent clients from establishing welfare cases in 
multiple California counties and to provide better 
security for worker case fraud. 

$87,250 of the proposed supplemental 
appropriation of $120,840 would be used to fund 
the salaries and fringe benefits for the following 
five new positions for the Department of Human 
Services for the period from March 1, 2000 through 
June 30, 2000: 

No. of Step 1 Step 5 

FTE (Biweekly- (Biweekly- 

Positions Classification Title Annual) Annual) 

4 1426N Senior Clerk Typist $1,316- $1,596- 

$34,479 $41,815 

1 2912N Senior Social Worker $1,680- $2,048- 

$44,016 53,658 

The annual cost of the five requested new positions 
would range from $227,597 at Step 1, including 
salaries of $181,932 and fringe benefits of $45,665 
to $276,368 at Step 5, including salaries of 
$220,918 and fringe benefits of $55,450. 

One of the proposed four new 1426 Senior Clerk 
Typist positions would be assigned to operate the 
new fingerprint and photo imaging system for the 
Food Stamps Program, located at the DHS leased 
facility at 1440 Harrison Street. The remaining 
three new 1426 Senior Clerk Typists would be 
assigned to operate the fingerprint and photo 
imaging system for the CalWORKs Program, 
located at the City-owned 170 Otis Street facility. 
The one new 2912 Senior Social Worker position 
would also be assigned to the CalWORKs Program 
to serve as the client coordinator providing 
outreach and client assistance on the procedures 
and requirements of the new fingerprint and photo 
imaging system. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Sally Kipper of DHS, in 1994, 

DHS implemented a fingerprinting system for 
General Assistance (GA) clients under a pilot 
Automated Finger Imaging Report and Match 
(AFIRM) program with Contra Costa and Alameda 
counties as well as other Southern California 
counties. Ms. Kipper advises that the AFIRM 
system enabled fraud detection within San 
Francisco's GA Program and with Contra Costa 
and Alameda Counties GA Programs, with which 
the San Francisco database was matched. Based on 
an analysis of the AFIRM system in 1995, DHS 
determined that San Francisco realized a net 
savings of $1,090,400 from discontinued General 
Assistance client cases. 

2. Mr Michael Louis of DHS advises that the 
AFIRM system contract costs $193,000 annually for 
the GA Program. In addition, Mr. Louis advises 
that three Senior Clerk Typist positions are used to 
currently operate this AFIRM system for GA client. - 
at DHS's leased facility at 123") Mission Street. 
According to Mr. Louis, the contract for the current 
AFIRM system is due to expire in April of 2000, at 
which time the AFIRM contract would be 
terminated and the subject State-mandated 
fingerprinting and photo imaging system (SFIS) 
would be implemented for GA, Food Stamp and 
CalWORKS programs. Mr. Louis advises that the 
current three Senior Clerk Typist positions that 
operate the AFIRM system, as well as the proposed 
five new positions, for a total of eight permanent 
full-time positions, would be needed to implement 
the proposed State-mandated SFIS for the GA, 
Food Stamps and CalWORKS clients. Mr. Louis 
reports that the State determined the number of 
workstations and staff required to implement the 
SFIS based on the number of clients in each 
county. 

3. However. Mr. Louis advises that the proposed 
State-mandated system is specifically targeted to 
Food Stamp and CalWORKS clients and does not 
require that General Assistance clients, which are 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

fully funded with local General Fund revenues, be 
included in the proposed fingerprinting and photo 
imaging system. Mr. Louis reports that San 
Francisco intends to include all GA clients in the 
proposed new SFIS system, as a means of guarding 
the County against fraud and duplication of 
benefits. The Budget Analyst notes that the State 
guidelines indicate that counties opting to use SFIS 
for their GA clients will be charged for the counties' 
processing costs by the State. Ms. Kipper advises 
that, at this time, DHS does not know what DHS' 
costs will be to include GA clients in the new SFIS 
system. Ms. Julie Brenman of DHS reports that the 
costs for San Francisco to include all GA clients in 
the new SFIS system should not exceed the current 
annual contract costs of $193,000 for the existing 
AFIRM system. 

4. Mr. Louis advises that the State estimates that 
the net State-wide savings realized from the 
implementation of SFIS for CalWORKS and Food 
Stamp Programs will be $118 million. Ms. Kipper 
notes that San Francisco pays 2.5 percent of the 
CalWORKS grants and none of the Food Stamp 
coupon costs. Therefore, Ms. Kipper advises that 
even large savings in such programs that result 
from SFIS are not likely to result in significant 
direct savings for San Francisco. Mr. Louis reports 
that DHS has not estimated the potential net 
savings that will result for San Francisco from the 
implementation of SFIS for the GA Program. 

5. According to Ms. Brenman, $5,000 is included in 
the proposed supplemental to pay for training DHS 
staff on the new SFIS program requirements. In 
addition, $5,100 is included for remodeling the 
existing space at 170 Otis Street to accommodate 
the three new positions, which will include 
removing two walls. Another $23,490 is included to 
cover the cost of purchasing and installing new 
modular furnishings for the five new positions. 

6. Under the proposed supplemental, the four 
Senior Clerk Typists are scheduled to be hired as of 
March 1, 2000 and the one Senior Social Worker is 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

scheduled to be hired as of April 10, 2000. However, 
Mr. Louis advises that the State will not begin the 
training for the proposed SFIS Program until early 
April. The Budget Analyst therefore recommends 
that all of the five new positions have a start date 
of April 1, 2000. This would result in a reduction in 
the CalWORKS Program Permanent Salaries from 
$55,380 to $44,434, a savings of $10,946, and the 
associated Mandatory Fringe Benefits from $13,900 
to $11,153, a savings of $2,747, for a total savings 
in the CalWORKS Program of $13,693. In addition, 
the Food Stamps Program Permanent Salaries 
should be reduced from $14,365 to $10,374, a 
savings of $3,991 and the associated Mandatory 
Fringe Benefits from $3,605 to $2,604, a further 
savings of $1,001, for a total savings in the Food 
Stamps Program of $4,992. Overall, the proposed 
$120,840 supplemental appropriation should be 
reduced by $18,685 to $102,155. The proposed 
supplemental appropriation should be further 
amended to reflect a decrease in the SFIS source of 
funding, which should be reduced from $138,669 to 
$119,984, to reflect the total savings of $18,685. 

7. According to the State requirements, existing 
CalWORKs clients must be included in the SFIS 
within six months and existing Food Stamp clients 
must be included in the SFIS within one year. The 
Budget Analyst notes that DHS will therefore have 
a significantly heavier workload during the first six 
months to one year of this new SFIS program, 
while the Department is required to fingerprint 
and photograph all existing and new welfare 
clients. After this six months to one year period, 
only new welfare clients will require to be 
fingerprinted, which should result in a significantly 
lighter workload for the SFIS staff. Therefore, the 
Budget Analyst recommends that two of the 
proposed four new permanent 1426 N Senior Clerk 
Typist positions be changed to 1426 L for Limited 
duration. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Recommendations: 1. Reduce the proposed $120,840 supplemental 

appropriation ordinance (File 00-0065) by $18,685 
to $102,155, to reflect a beginning employment 
date of April 1, 2000 for the five proposed new 
positions, as detailed in Comment No. 6 above. 

2. Amend both of the proposed ordinances by 
changing two of the 1426 N positions to 1426 L 
positions to distinguish that two of the proposed 
permanent new Senior Clerk Typists will be filled 
on a Limited duration basis. 

3. Approve the proposed ordinances, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



wr 



EXHIBIT A 



ADDITIONAL REVENUE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION 
DSS 01 1G S&A WAF 455003 SS0291 Federal Subventions 



Attachment 



DSS REVENUE SUMMARY 


SFIS 


Previous 






PROGRAM 


Supplemental 2 


Budgeted 


Additional 


Obj 


TITLE 


FY 99/00 


FY 99/00 


Revenue 


40101 


CHILDRENS SVCS 


13.460.995 


13,460,104 


891 


40102 


FFH LICENSING 


427.307 


427.274 


33 


40103 


ADOPTIONS SVCS 


811.034 


810.980 


54 


40105 


ADULT SVCS 


3,951.595 


3.950,982 


613 


40106 


I LP 


856,675 


856,661 


14 


40124 


FOOD STAMPS E&T 


4.613.206 


4.613.627 


(421) 


40131 


CalWORKs FGAJ (old AFDC) 


8.635,727 


8.636,503 


(876) 


40133 


AAP ELIG ADMIN 


54,678 


54.705 


(27) 


40134 


FOOD STAMPS 


8.927.606 


8.931,598 


(3.992) 



DSS 01 1G S&A WAF 455003 SS0292 State Subventions 



45103 


ADOPTIONS SVCS 


1.950.016 


- :-.887 


129 


45106 


SFIS 


138.669 




138.669 


45107 


CalWIN 


6.452,574 


6.452.562 




45130 


Non Custodial Parent 


1 .403,664 


1.403.906 


(242) 


45131 


CalWORKS FG/U (old AFDC) 


4,321.571 


4,322.086 


(515) 


45134 


FOOD STAMPS 


6.249,324 


6.252,119 


(2.795) 


45136 


CAPI ADMIN 


897.879 


898.328 




45199 


SSI-P Unit 


290,804 


290.780 


24 


45301 


MEDI CAL 


21.037.177 


21.047.460 


(10.283) 






============ 


============= 


= = = = = = = = = : 






257.439.598 


257.318.759 


120.840 



THE TOTAL REQUESTED ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION 
REFLECTS CHANGES IN THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS: 



Index Coc Subobiect 



Amount 



455017 


001 


455017 


013 


455019 


001 


455019 


013 


455016 


021 


455016 


040 



S 


55.2SC 


s 


13.900 


s 


14.364 


s 


3,605 


s 


10,100 


s 


23.490 



I20 B40 



DHS FY 99-00 Supplemental 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 7 - File 00-0082 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount and 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Asian Art Museum 

Ordinance appropriating $22,950,547 in proceeds from the 
sale of bonds and interest income for the reconstruction of 
the Asian Art Museum, to be relocated at the old Main 
Library. 



1989 Earthquake Safety Bond Interest $1,737,669 
1996 Asian Art Relocation Project 

Bond Series Interest 4,452,462 
1999 Asian Art Relocation Project 

Bond Series Proceeds 16,760.416 

Total $22,950,547 

The Asian Art Museum will be relocating from its present 
site in Golden Gate Park to the old Main Library building 
at 200 Larkin Street in the year 2002. The total Asian Art 
Museum Relocation Project approved budget is 
$125,200,000, of which $115,600,000 will be expended on 
the seismic retrofit and the adaptive reuse of the old Main 
Library, and an additional $9,600,000 will be expended on 
the Relocation and Capital Campaign (the private donation 
campaign). Funding for the $125,200,000 Asian Art 
Museum Relocation Project budget comes from $57,370,547 
in General Obligation Bond proceeds and accrued interest, 
and from projected private donations of approximately 
$92,800,000. According to Ms. Ikuko Satoda of the Asian 
Art Museum, in addition to the projected budget of 
$125,200,000, the Asian Art Museum capital campaign 
contains a $25,000,000, or 20 percent, contingency. The 
actual projected costs for the Asian Art Museum Relocation 
Project, including the contingency, would be $150,200,000. 
Ms. Satoda states that the projected target for private 
donations is approximately $92,800,000. and that the total 
amount of private and public funding ($92,800,000 plus 
$57,370,547) would approximately equal the actual 
projected costs, including the 20 percent contingency, of the 
Asian Art Museum Relocation Project of $150,200,000. 

The San Francisco electorate has approved the issuance of 
$9,420,000 in Earthquake Safety Bonds and $41,760,416 in 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Asian Art Relocation Bonds to fund the Asian Art Museum 
Relocation Project, as follows: 

1989 Earthquake Safety Bonds $ 9,420,00C 

1996 Asian Art Relocation Bond Series 25,000,00C 

1999 Asian Art Relocation Bond Series 16,760,416 

1989 Earthquake Safety Bonds Interest 1,737,669 

1996 Asian Art Relocation Bonds Interest 4,452,462 

Total $57,370,547 

The Board of Supervisors has previously appropriated and 
released $34,420,000 in bond proceeds for the Asian Art 
Museum Relocation Project (Files 99-2075, 101-96-88, 101- 
90-10.13, 101-90-10.12, and 101-94-4). The remaining 
$22,950,547 is the subject of this appropriation ordinance. 

Budget: The projected budgt-t for the (22,950,547 is as follows: 

City Attorney Sen S 300,000 

Future Construction Subcontracts 

Glass 2,375.000 

Drywall 4,625,000 

15% Contingency 1,050.000 

Subtotal. Future Subcontracts 8,050,000 

Existing Construction 

Subcontracts 14.600,547 

Total 522.950,547 

Attachment I, provided by the Asian .Art Museum, provides 
a summary of the public funding sources for the Asian Art 
Museum Relocation Proje* "0,547) and additional 

budget details to support the total publicly-funded project 
costs of $58,026,108, including the subject request for 
950,547. According to Ms. Satoda. the additional 
needed funds in the amount of $655,561 ($58,026,108 less 
170,547) are available from private funding sources 
(see Comment No. 5). 

Comments: 1. As shown in Attachment II. provided by the Asian Art 

Museum, seven existing construction subcontracts 1 total 



1 The Asian Art Museum has awarded a construction contract, funded with private 
donations, to a general contractor. Lem/DPR Construction Company, a joint venture 
company, to oversee the Asian Art Museum construction project. The seven subcontractors 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

$47,725,000, of which $14,600,547 would be funded from 
the subject $22,950,547 supplemental appropriation. 
Attachment II includes names of 7 subcontractors, a list of 
the bidders and the amount of the bids. 

2. The seven existing construction subcontracts include 
earth and foundation work, including exterior groundwork 
and the addition of a lower level, structural work, including 
demolition, concrete and steel work, installation of elevator 
and escalator systems, and seismic reinforcements. 
Additionally, Ms. Satoda states, as shown in Attachment II, 
that of the $47,725,000 in existing construction 
subcontracts, $2,702,271 has been expended as of January 
21, 2000. Such expenditures were made from funds 
previously appropriated and released by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

3. Ms. Satoda also states that the Asian Art Museum has a 
projected budget of $8,050,000 for glass and drywall work. 
According to Ms. Satoda, subcontractors to perform the 
glass and drywall work would be selected through a 
competitive bid process. 

4. Attachment III, provided by the Asian Art Museum, 
shows costs for City Attorney services of $293,209, which is 
$6,791 less than the requested amount of $300,000. 
Therefore, the proposed ordinance should be amended to 
provide for a supplemental appropriation of $22,943,756 
($22,950,547 less $6,791). 

5. In the attached memorandum (Attachment IV), Ms. 
Satoda states that the Asian Art Museum expects to raise 
$92,800,000 in private donations. Attachment III states 
that, of that amount, as of December 31. 1999, $65,000,000 
has been pledged and $41,000,000 has been received. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance by reducing the 
appropriation by $6,791, from $22,950,547 to $22,943,756, 
in accordance with Comment No. 4. 

2. Approve the proposed ordinance, as amended. 



listed in Attachment II have been awarded subcontracts, after a competitive bidding process, 
to perform each of the projects listed. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



New Asian Art Museum 
Public Funds Budget 



Attachment I 



PUBLIC FUNDING SOURCES 

1989 Earthquake Safety Bond 

1994 Asian Art Relocation Bond-1996E 

1994 Asian Art Relocation Bond-1999D Proceeds 

Interest -1989 Earthquake Safety Bond 

Interest - Asian Art Relocation - Series 1996E 

TOTAL PUBLIC FUNDING SOURCES 



PUBLIC 

9.420,000 

25,000,000 

16,760.416 

1,737,669 

4,452,462 

57,370,547 



USES-PUBLICLY FUNDED 



Amount Spent prior to construction 
DPW and Bond issuance costs 

Construction Costs 

Public Contracts to date (See Exhibit 1 ) 

Change Order Allowance @ 15% 

Building Permit 

Future Public Bid - Glass 

Future Public Bid - Drywall 

Change Order Allowance @ 15% for Glass & Drywall 

Total Construction Costs 

City Attorney Costs 

Total Publicly Funded Uses 

* Difference 



41,500,000 
6,225.000 
600.000 
2,375,000 
4.625.000 
1.050,000 



1.351,108 



56.375,000 
300.000 



53.026,108 
(655.561) 



* Please ncte that overage will be covered by private funds. 



ASIAN ART MUSEUM 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 5 



PUBLICLY FUNDED CONTRACTS 


DESCRIPTION 


SUB-CONTRACTOR 


AMOUNT 


Structural Demolition 


Aman 


$3,988, 000.00 


Structural Steel 


Bostrom Bergen 


517,981,798.00 


Structural Concrete 


S.J. Amoroso 


513,497,400.00 


Conveying System 


Thyssen Dover 


51,360,000.00 


Earthwork, Trenching, Civil Demolition 


Ryan Engineering 


5778,570.00 


Seismic Isolation Bearings 


Dynamic Isolation Sys 


52,995,000.00 


Site Shoring 


Malcom 


5899,000.00 


Total Contracts 


rounding 


541,500,000.00 


Change Order Allowance @ 15% 


56.225.000 


Grand Total 




547,725,000.00 



^N 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 5 



ASIAN ART MLSE 
r A^ 1 OFSA\ FRANCIS 

ERY 1U\D<C! CO 



TO: 


Alan Gibson v 
Ikuko Satodif-fc^ 


FROM: 


DATE: 


November 16, 1999 


SUBJECT: 


File 99-2 



Thus is a listing of all the bidders for each of the five contracts, and the amounts each 
one bid. 



CONTRACT BIDS 


BID PACKAGE 


STRUCTURAL DEMOLITION 


Bidders 


AMAN ICONCO 


Bid Amount 


3,988.000 4,541,000 




Awarded 


BID PACKAGE 


STRUCTURAL STEEL 


Bidders 


Bostrom-Bergen WW Steel 


Bid Amount 


17 qri 7u c iq QRn nnr\ 
i < ,yo i , i yo 1 3,30u,uuu 




Awarded 


BID PACKAGE 


STRUCTURAL CONCRETE 


Bidders 


S.J. Amoroso Conco 


Bid Amount 


13,497,400 15,030,568 




Awarded 


BID PACKAGE 


CONVEYING SYSTEMS 


Bidders 


Thyssen-Dover Montogmery 


Bid Amount 


1,360,000 2,661,000 




Awarded 


BID PACKAGE 


EARTHWORK. TRENCHING 


Bidders 


Ryan Aman 


Bid Amount 


788.570 988.000 




Awarded 



CHONC-MCX 

"FOR - 

GOLDE-- 

SAN franc:? 

CALIFORNIA - 

. 

TDD - 



Attachment II 
Page 3 of 5 



ASIAN ART MUSEUM- Tabulation of Bids 

BID PACKAGE #1 : Base Isolators and Flat Jacks 

Bids Received: June 30, 1999 



TOn 



ASIAN ART MUSEUM 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 





Bidders 


Bid Bond 


Total Bid 






* 


Bridgestone 


X 


$2,189,465 








Dynamic Isolation Systems (DIS) 


X 


$2,995,000 








Skellerup 


X 


$3,476, 592 















Apparent Low Bidder: 



_Bridgestone_ 



** Bridgestone was disqualified as it did not meet city procedures. 
Warranties were based on Japanese laws. 



Exhibit I 



PROJECT 



Wks 



Attachnei 
Page A o: 



ASIAN ART MUSEI 
r A^ 1 OF SAN FRA.NCISC 



ASIAN ART MUSEUM - Tabulation of Bids 



BID PACKAGE #3 - Contract Package #11: Site Shoring 

Bids Received: August 3, 1999 JjJ • ^ f ' 



Malcolm Condon-Johnson 


BIDDERS 




Bid Amount S899.000 51,100.088 |S |S 




Unit Prices S132/S88 | S165.42/S130.20 | 




Bid Bond | U.S. Fidelity | Lumbermens 




Non-Collusion Affidavit faxed 8/12 X 




Acknowledgement of Addenda A-E A-E 




List of Subcontractors X X 




Apprenticeship Training Cert. X X 




Highest General Prevailing Rate X X 




Business Tax Registration Decl. X X 




Affirmative Action Program X X 




Worker's Compensation Cert. X X 




Non-Discrimination in Contracts | X X 




HRC Form 1 X X 




HRC Form 2A (7% combined) 7% MBE 6 57% + .6% 




HRC Form 2B | 





Apparent Low Bidder: Malcolm Drilling 



August 3, 1999 



Exhibit II 



■ -IAN 

SAN ^V. ■ 

KM V •- 

- 



Attachment II 
Fage b of 5 



ASIAN ART MUSEUM 
SUBCONTRACT EXPENSES TO DATE 
through January 21, 1999 



SUBCONTRACT EXPENSES - PUBLICLY FUNDED 




DESCRIPTION 


AMOUNT 


Isolators/Flat Jack 


286,200 


Structural Demolition 


991,290 


Structural Steel 


866,000 


Concrete 


310,000 


Earthwork 


200,881 


Site Shoring 


47,900 














TOTAL EXPENSES 


2,702,271 



Attachment III' 



Mn 



. ASIAN ART Ml 5E 
rAVlFAl 1 OF SAN FRANCIS 

r h e • 



TO: Sevenn Campbell 

FROM: Ikuko Satoda^o 

DATE: January 26. 2000 

SUBJECT: Appropriation of general obligation bonds for the Asian An Museum 



This is in response to the questions you had regarding the following 



1 ) Bids received for Base Isolators and Site Shoring - see exhibit I & II for Bid Tabulation. 
Contracts were awarded to DIS and Malcom Drilling respectively 

2) City Attorney charges are itemized as follows: 
--Litigation regarding the Piazzoni murals 
--Landmarks Board 

-Planning Commission 
--Reviewed contracts 

The hourly billing rates for the Deputy City Attorneys who arc were working on the New 
Asian Art Museum Project range from S123.99 to SI: 



FY 95-96 
FY 96-97 
FY 97-98 



S19.555 
S25.918 

S63.082 



FY 98-99 SI 84.654 



Total 






Please note that these invoices have not been paid. The attorney costs for the entire project will be 
at least S300.000. It will be paid from the interest earnings on the bonds. 



It you have additional questions or need funher explanation, please contact me at 557-6813. 
Thank vou. 



- 



Mn 



Attachment IV 



. ASIAN ART MUSEUM 
rA%JrAl 1 OF SAN FRANCISCO 
January 26, 2000 THE 1VE8V brundace collection 



Mr. Harvey Rose 

Ms. Sevenn Campbell 

Budget Analyst 

1390 Market Street, Suite #1025 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

RE: Appropriation of general obligation bonds for the Asian Art Museum 



Explanation of project 

The Asian Art Museum relocation from Golden Gate Park to Civic Center is budgeted at 
S125.2 million of which project costs of SI 15.6 million is directly associated with the seismic 
retrofit and the adaptive reuse of the Old Main Library. The remaining non-project costs 
of S9.6 million is related to Relocation and Capital Campaign. 



Private Donations 

The projected target for private donations is S92.8 million; (Total budget of S125.2 million plus Other 
Contingencies of S25 million less S51.2 million bond issues and interests of S6.2 million.) 

Total amount pledged through 12/31/99 is S65 million. 
Payments received through 12/31/99 is S41 million. 



Donor Information 

The pledge to-date has come from: 
Approx: 72% Individuals 
Approx: 25% Charitable Foundations 
Approx: 3% Corporations 

Capital Campaign Status is provided to Supervisors Ammiano, Yee and Bierman on a monthlv 
basis. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. 

Ikuko Satoda 

Chief Operating Officer 

Ph.(415)557-6813 



IMIOM 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 8 • File 00-0094 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Budget: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Hearing to consider the release of $100,000 in reserved 
funds to develop and implement a program to target, 
educate and motivate public housing residents to respond 
to the 2000 Census. 

$100,000 

1999 Community Development Block Grant 

When the Board of Supervisors approved the 1999 
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program in 
February of 1999 (File 99-0049), they placed $100,000 on 
reserve under the category of "San Francisco Housing 
Authority Pool". At that time MOCD had not identified 
use for the subject reserved funds. MOCD is now 
proposing to provide a $100,000 grant to the San Francisco 
Housing Authority (SFHA) to develop and implement an 
educational campaign among public housing residents 
regarding the importance of the 2000 Census. The SFHA 
effort would be coordinated with and through the City 
Administrator's Office, which is conducting the Citywide 

2000 Census outreach effort, to ensure non-duplicative 
efforts and maximize all possibilities for accurate Census 
counting. 

The summary- budget for the proposed release of reserved 
funds is as follows: 



Salaries and Fringe Benefits 

Contractual Services 

Office Supplies 

Telecommunications 

Administrative Fees (10% of Salaries) 

Audit 

Total 



$70,582 

10,000 

8,200 

1.200 

7.058 

1. 500 

$98,540 



The Attachment, provided by MOCD, contains details to 
support the budget noted above. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



1. According to Mr. Buddy Choy of SFHA, the $100,000 
grant would be used to conduct a public education and 
outreach campaign among public housing residents 
regarding the importance of responding to the 2000 
Census. Mr. Choy states that only 69 percent of public 
housing residents responded to the 1990 Census, resulting 
in a loss of Federal and State funding to San Francisco. 
The outreach campaign, which is modeled on get-out-the- 
vote campaigns and would continue until June of 2000, 
would include door-to-door outreach, group education 
projects, and meetings with tenant associations. 
Additionally, the outreach campaign would coordinate 
with the Citywide 2000 Census outreach effort, conducted 
by the City Administrator's Office. 

2. According to Mr. Choy, SFHA would hire staff for the 
campaign from Together United Recommitted Forever 
(TURF), a nonprofit public housing tenants organization. 
As shown in the Attachment, such staff would include the 
executive director (2 percent time), a full-time 
administrative manager, and 10 public housing residents 
working part time. Mr. Choy states that one goal of the 
Census outreach campaign is to provide job development to 
the ten public housing residents employed part-time, and 
to volunteers working with the campaign. As part of this 
goal, SFHA would award a $10,000 contract to The 
Support Center, a community-based nonprofit organization 
selected on a sole-source basis due to its experience and 
expertise in working with public housing residents, to 
assist SFHA in providing job development to public 
housing residents working on the public education and 
outreach campaign. 

3. The budget for the proposed SFHA grant is $98,540. 
Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends that $98,540 of 
the requested funds be released and $1,460 remain on 
reserve. 



Recommendation: 



Approve $98,540 of the requested $100,000 reserved funds 
and continue to reserve funds in the amount of $1,460, in 
accordance with Comment No. 3. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Schedule A. Part 1. Project Budget (This Project Only) 

Project Name: Public Housing 2000 Census Project 

Organization Name: San Francisco Housing Authority 

Tax ID: 



Attachment 
'- u age 1 of 2 



Column A Column B | Column C 


Line 


Budget Item 


1998 CDBG/ESG 

Funding 

Currently Funded 

Projea 


1998 Other 
Funding 

Currently Funded 
Projea 


1999 

CDBG/ESG 

Request 


1 


Employee Salaries &. Fringe Benefits 


s 




S70.582.00 


2 


Contractual Services — Consultants 


s 


s 


S 10.000.00 


3 


Repairs and Maintenance (not capital projects) |S 


s 


S 


4 


Equipment (Purchase or Rental) 1$ 


s 


S 


5 


Insurance (Workers Comp; Liability; Property; Fidelity. Auto) IS 


s 


s 


6 


Space Rental (Lease of Administrative/Program Space) 


s 


s 


5 


7 


Supplies (Office Supplies including Stationary) 


s 


s 


SS.200.00 


8 


ESG Supplies (Food, or Bedding) 


s 


s 


s 


9 


Telecommunications (Phone) 


s 


s 


S 1.200.00 


10 


Travel/Conferences 


s 


s 


s 


11 


Utilines 


s 


s 


s 


12 


Other (Administrative Fee) 


s 


s 


S7.058.00 


13 


Audit (This item must be completed) 


s 


s 


Sl.500.00 


14 


Homeless Prevention activities (for ESG) 


s 


s 


s 


15 


Total Project Costs (Lines 1 thru 14) 


s 


s 


S98.540.00 












16 


Program Income (generated from this program only, i.e., fees) 


s 


s 


S-0- 



Schedule A Part 2: Total Organizational Funding 



Line 



Column A 



Column B 



Column C 



Column D 



Part 2. Agency Funding Sources 



FT 1996 



FY 1997 



FY 1998 



1 Mayor's Office of Community Development 



10 



11 



Mayor's Office of Housing (non-CDBG) 



Mayor's Office of Children. Youth & Farruhes 



San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 



Department of Human Services 



Department of Public Health 



Private Industrv Council 



Other City Funding 



Total Other Government Grants (Non-City) 
All HIT) - Public Housing Budget 



S41 Million 



Total Corporate. Private Organization Contributions 



Total Contributions from Individuals 



12 Total Loans 



13 Total Program Income (fees from any source) 



14 



Total Agency Funding (Lines 1 thru 13)|S 



If you need additional space to complete response, please use reverse side of this page 



Page 12 



1999 Request for Proposal 



Schedule B: 1999 Program Budget Worksheet 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



Non Profit Organization Name: San Francisco Housing Authorit 



Line Budget Item Column A Proposed Budget Request 

CDBG/ESG Amount Total Program Cost 




■_ Employee Listing & Job Title 
(Include %Time Assigned to Project) 


Race 
Ethnicity 


Salary/Wages 


SalaryAVages 


1 


Executive Director (TURF) 2% 


Afro- American 


S8,760.00 


SS, 760.00 


2 


Administrative Manager (TURF) 100% 


Afro- American 


S32.640.00 


S32.640.00 


3 


Crew Member, (TURF) 10 x 50% 


Afro- American and 
Samoan 


S 12,480.00 


S12.480.00 


4 




S 


5 


3 


1 


S 


S 


6 


1 


s 


s 


7 


I 


s 


s 


8 






s 


s 


9 






s 


s 


10 




s 


s 


11 


Fringe Benefits/Expenses (Payroll Taxes, Insurance, etc.) x 31% 


516,702.00 


S16.702.00 


12 


Total Employee Salaries, Wages & Fringes (Lines 1 thru 11) 


S70.582.00 


S70.582.00 




Business or Individual Consultant Listing 


Consultant Expense 


Consultant Expense 


13 


Organizational Consultant 
The Support Center 


SI 0,000.00 


S 10.000.00 


SI 0.000.00 


14 




s 


s 


15 




s 


S 


16 


1 


s 


s 


17 


Total Consultants (Lines 13 thru 16) 


S10.000.00 


SI 0.000.00 




Equipment List 


Amount 


Amount 


18 


Office Supplies 


S2.000.00 


52,000.00 


19 


Reproduction 


SI, 200.00 


SI. 200.00 


20 


Census Multilingual Signage, other publicity materials for SFHA 
residents 


S5.000.00 


$5,000.00 


21 








22 


Total Equipment (Lines 18 thru 21) 


S8.200.00 


S3.200.00 




Travel 


.Amount 


Amount 


23 




S 


5 


24 




s 


S 


25 




s 


S 


26 




s 


S 


27 | Total Travel (Lines 23 thru 26) 


s 


5 


Other Program Expenses 


Amount 


Amount 


28 


1 Administrative Overhead Fee ( 10%) 


S7.05S.00 


S7.058.00 


29 


[Telecommunications 


S 1.200 00 


SI. 200.00 


30 |Audit 


SI. 500.00 


SI. 500.00 


31 1 


s 


S 


32 




s 


s 


Total Other (Lines 28 thru 32) 


S9.7S8.00 


S9.758 00 



NOTE: not all Schedule A budget items are listed on Schedule B 



Page 13 



1999 Kcauest for ProDov.il 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 9 - File 00-0095 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in 
the amount of $50,000 for DPH to fund an actuarial 
study, as part of an overall feasibility study, of the 
Methadone by Prescription Program. 

$50,000 

During the FY 1999-2000 budget review, the Board 
of Supervisors appropriated $50,000 in the DPH 
budget, and placed such funds on reserve, pending 
submission of contract and related cost details, for 
DPH to provide physician training, as part of the 
Methadone by Prescription Program. 

In February of 1998, the Board of Supervisors 
directed the Department of Public Health (DPH) to 
establish the Methadone by Prescription Program to 
permit physicians to prescribe methadone for 
patients addicted to opiates, as an alternative to 
providing methadone solely in clinics (Resolution 56- 
98). An interdisciplinary planning group, comprised 
of providers, community groups, and DPH programs, 
developed a model program to permit physicians to 
prescribe methadone as a treatment to individuals 
addicted to opiates. 

In November of 1999, the Board of Supervisors 
authorized DPH to accept $100,000 in Federal grant 
funds to conduct a feasibility study of the Methadone 
by Prescription Program to determine provider 
interest in participating in the program, conduct 
training sessions for providers, develop a centralized 
data base, develop quality control and evaluation 
protocols, and conduct an actuarial study of the 
program (File 99-1993). 

The $50,000 in reserved funds, which is the subject 
of this hearing and is additional to the $100,000 
Federal grant funds noted above, was appropriated 
by the Board of Supervisors and placed on reserve m 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



the FY 1999-2000 budget review to conduct provider 
training for the Methadone by Prescription Program. 
DPH is now requesting the release of the subject 
$50,000 in reserved funds to conduct an actuarial 
study of the Methadone by Prescription Program, 
instead of funding a contract for DPH to provide 
physician training, as part of the Methadone by 
Prescription Program. According to Dr. Herminia 
Palacio of DPH, both provider training and the 
actuarial study are part of the overall feasibility 
study for the Methadone by Prescription Program, as 
noted above. Dr. Palacio states that DPH is now 
proposing to expend the subject $50,000 in reserved 
funds on an actuarial study of the Methadone by 
Prescription Program, since the previously approved 
Federal grant for $100,000 has funded the contract 
for DPH to provide physician training as part of the 
Methadone by Prescription Program. 



Budget: 



Although a contract has not yet been awarded for the 
proposed study, DPH has estimated a $50,000 budget 
as follows: 



Actuarial Study (300 hours 




@ $150 per hour) 


$45,000 


Research and Data Base Costs 


5.000 


Total 


$50,000 



The Attachment, provided by DPH, contains the 
details for the $5,000 in research and data base 
costs. 



Comments: 



1. According to Ms. Anne Okubo of DPH, the purpose 
of the actuarial cost analysis is to determine the 
potential cost of providing the Methadone by 
Prescription Program. Ms. Okubo states that DPH 
proposes to use $50,000 for an actuarial cost analysis 
to estimate the cost of implementing three stages of 
the proposed Methadone by Prescription Program. 
Each stage would target 10 percent, 50 percent and 
100 percent, respectively, of the eligible heroin-user 
population, who would seek treatment for their 
addiction. According to Ms. Okubo, the estimated 
number of active heroin users in San Francisco is 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



13,000 to 15,000. However, Ms. Okubo states that, at 
this time, DPH does not have an estimate of the 
number of active heroin users who would seek 
treatment for their addiction in the proposed 
Methadone by Prescription Program, and that one 
goal of the proposed actuarial study would be to 
estimate the number of such individuals in order to 
estimate the cost of the implementation in each of 
the three stages, noted above. 

2. Ms. Okubo advises that, in order to estimate the 
cost of each stage of the proposed Methadone by 
Prescription Program, the actuarial analysis would: 

(a) estimate the number of heroin users in San 
Francisco who would seek treatment for their 
addiction in the Methadone by Prescription Program, 

(b) compare the capacity of existing programs to the 
estimate of heroin users seeking treatment, (c) collect 
data on Medi-Cal and commercial insurance plan 
reimbursement rates for methadone and other 
substance abuse treatment services, primary care 
services, and mental health services, provided by 
private as well as DPH providers, and (d) analyze 
utilization data for existing methadone treatment 
services funded by Medi-Cal and General Fund 



3. Ms. Okubo states that DPH would issue a Request 
for Proposal to select a provider to conduct the 
actuarial study of the proposed Methadone by 
Prescription Program. 

4. The subject $50,000 funds being requested for 
release at this time were reserved by the Board of 
Supervisors in the FY 1999-2000 budget review, 
pending selection of the contractor and submission of 
contract cost details. Because a contractor has not 
been selected at this time, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that the funds continue to remain on 
reserve, pending the selection of a contractor and 
submission of contract cost details. 

Recommendation: Continue to reserve funds in the amount of $50,000. 
pending the selection of a contractor and submission 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



of the contract cost details, in accordance with 
Comment No. 4. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



01/10/1995 12:16 4155542908 FINANCE UNIT PAGE 02 

Attachment 

Department of Public Health 

Methadone Access Physician Training 

Consultant Operating Expenses 





Houm 


$/Hour 




Clerical Support 


50 


S 20.00 $ 


1.000 


Data Search 






1.000 


Data Acqui&.bon 






2.500 


Printing & Reproduction 






500 


Total 




$ 


5,000 



.W-XOjAWvksu* vnetneoone m -.ICAX) 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 10 - File 00-0045 

Department: 

Item: 



Contract Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Term of Contract: 
Budget: 

Description: 



Public Transportation Commission (PTC) 

Resolution requesting approval of a Paratransit Broker 
Agreement with COMSIS Mobility Services, Inc., DBA 
Intelitran, for an amount not to exceed $66,420,375, for a 
term of five years. 

Not to exceed $66,420,375 over a five-year period. 

Funding for the total Paratransit Broker Agreement of 
$66,420,375 is provided from five sources, including 
$27,232,354, or 41 percent, from General Fund monies, as 
follows: 



Percent 



Amount 



41 


$27,232,354 


44 


29,224.965 


5 


3,321,019 


4 


2,656,815 


6 


3.985.222 


100 


$66,420,375 



Source of Funds 

General Fund 
Transportation Authority 
Commission on the Aging 
State Transit Assistance 
Bay Area Rapid Transit 
Total 



April 1, 2000 through March 31, 2005 (five years). 

Attachment I. provided by Muni, provides complete 
budget details for this $66,420,375 contract. 

Paratransit services are door-to-door taxi and van services 
for City residents who are elderly or disabled and are 
certified for such services based on the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) eligibility criteria and who are 
unable to use fixed-route Muni. 

The proposed Paratransit Broker Agreement would 
replace the City's existing agreement with Cerenio 
Management Group (CMG), a private company, which 
commenced on October 1, 1991, and will expire March 31, 
2000. 

In November of 1998, Muni issued a request for proposals 
(RFP) for a new 5-year Paratransit Broker Agreeement. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



37 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



for the period beginning July 1, 1999 through June 30, 
2004. Three companies submitted proposals and two of 
the companies, CMG (the current contractor) and 
Intelitran, were selected as finalists by Muni. In 
February of 1999, an evaluation committee appointed by 
the PTC and consisting of two consumer representatives, 
two transit professionals outside of San Francisco, and 
one Muni representative, scored each proposal 
(Attachment II contains a list of the persons appointed to 
the evaluation committee). The scoring process resulted 
in a very close point spread between the two bidders, with 
CMG receiving the greater number of total points (CMG 
received 821 points and Intelitran received 811 points), 
but with Intelitran receiving a higher rating by a majority 
of the committee members. According to Ms. Annette 
Williams of Muni, as a result of the close point spread 
between the two bidders. Muni initiated contract 
negotiations with both bidders and requested each bidder 
to propose measures to address the weaknesses that were 
identified by the evaluation committee. Based on the 
results of the contract negotiations, Muni staff 
recommended that Intelitran be awarded the contract. 

However, according to Ms. Williams, in order to ensure a 
fair selection process, the Public Transportation 
Commission (PTC) directed that a new evaluation team, 
including an additional consumer representative, be 
selected to re-evaluate the proposals and all additional 
materials submitted by each bidder as part of the earlier 
negotiations. In July of 1999, the second evaluation 
committee reviewed the proposals and also recommended 
that the contract be awarded to Intelitran (Intelitran 
received 929 points and CMG received 865 points). 
Attachment II also contains a list of the persons 
appointed to the second evaluation committee. 

Meanwhile, the term of the existing Agreement with CMG 
was extended by the PTC three times (from July 1. 1999 
through October 31. 1999. from November 1, 1999 
through December 31, 1999, and from January 1. 2000 
through March 31. 2000), in order to permit completion of 
the selection process of a contractor for a new five-year 
Paratransit Broker Agreement. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



■}R 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize PTC 
to enter into a five-year Paratransit Broker Agreement 
with Intelitran, for a total contract cost not to exceed 
$66,420,375. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Williams, the total contract amount 

for the five-year period would not exceed $66,420,375, of 
which $10,961,193, or 16.5 percent, would be 
administrative costs for the five-year period, and 
$271,684, or 0.4 percent, would be start-up costs. 

Ms. Williams states that the annual administrative costs 
would be allocated as follows: 

One-time start-up costs $ 271,683 

Year 1 (4/1/00 - 6/30/00, or 3 months) 535,431 

Year 2 (7/1/00-6/30/01) 2,138,661 

Year 3 (7/1/01-6/30/02) 2,099,370 

Year 4 (7/1/02-6/30/03) 2,144,391 

YearS (7/1/03-6/30/04) 2,190,763 

Year 6 (7/1/04 - 3/31/05, or 9 months) 1,580.894 

Total Administrative Costs $10,961,193 

Attachment III, provided by Muni, contains the details to 
support the annual budgets for administrative costs noted 
above. Such total administrative costs of $10,961,193 are 
also reflected in Attachment I. 

2. As shown in the attached memorandum provided by 
Muni (Attachment IV) > the Paratransit Broker manages 
subcontracts with paratransit service providers, monitors 
service quality, administers client eligibility, manages the 
sale of fare instruments, and acts on behalf of the PTC as 
the principal customer service representative for 
paratransit services. Ms. Williams states that the 
evaluation criteria, as set forth in the RFP, allocated 45 
percent weight to the content of the work plan, including 
user, provider, and administrative tasks, 25 percent 
weight to the proposer background, and 30 percent weight 
to the budget for administrative costs. Ms. Williams 
states that CMG bid $10,796,629 in five-year 
administrative costs and Intelitran bid $10,874,095 in 
five-year administrative costs. As noted in the attached 
memorandum. Ms. Williams states that the actual five- 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



year administrative costs differ from the bid of 
$10,874,095 submitted by Intelitran because th*> start 
date for the Paratransit Broker Agreement was 
from July 1, 1999 to April 1, 2000 (a period of nine 
months). Ms. Williams states that the increased 
administrative costs of $87,098, or 0.8 percent, 
($10,961,193 less $10,874,095) are due to a cost 
adjustment resulting from the delayed start date of nine 
months 

3 Ms. Williams states that the Paratransit Broker would 
subcontract with paratransit service providers, including 
taxicab companies, and group and lift van prov 
provide the paratransit services. Ms. William -hat 

the approximate allocations for each type of service under 
the $66,420,37") five-year agreement, are as follows: 





Five-Year 






Projected Cost 


Percent 


Administrative Service 


$10,961,193 


16.5 


Taxi Service 


• 184,503 


40.0 


Lift Van Service 


11.906,763 


18.0 


Group Van Service 


16.867.916 


25.5 


Total 


$66,420,375 


100 



Attachment I provides the projected annual dollar 
allocation for the taxi, lift van and group van services for 
the five-year agreement. According to Ms. Williams, the 
actual expenditure for paratransit services, including 
taxi, and group and lift van services, is based upon client 
demand, and the amount allocated for such paratransit 
services for each fiscal year is based on the approximate 
percentage of the total Paratransit Broker Agreement 
allocation, noted above. 

4. Ms. Williams states that, under the proposed 
Paratransit Broker Agreement, Intelitran would 
subcontract with no less than five group van providers 
and one lift van provider to provide transportation 
services. Intelitran would select subcontractors, in 
consultation with Muni, through a Request for 
Qualifications (RFQ) process. Selection of a subcontractor 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



would be based on cost, and the type and quality of 
service provided. The projected allocation for the group 
and lift van services is contained in Attachment I. 
According to Ms. Williams, expenditures for lift van 
services under the Paratransit Broker Agreement with 
CMG in FY 1998-99 were $1,940,473.51 and for the first 
five months in FY 1999-2000 (from July 1, 1999 through 
November 30, 1999) were $906,097. Expenditures for 
group van services in FY 1998-99 were $2,434,433.92 and 
for the first five months in FY 1999-2000 were $1,148,819. 

5. According to Ms. Williams, in addition to the group and 
lift van services noted above, the Paratransit Program 
provides taxi services. The taxi services are of two types. 

(a) The Paratransit Program provides on-demand taxi 
service. Ms. Williams states that any taxicab company 
that meets the Paratransit Program insurance 
requirements can participate in the on-demand taxi 
program. The Paratransit Program client pays the 
regular taxi meter rate for the on-demand taxi service and 
receives a subsidy from the Paratransit Program, equal to 
90 percent of the taxi fare. 1 

(b) In addition to the on-demand taxi service, the City 
would lease to Intelitran 30 minivans, modified for use by 
the disabled, from April 1, 2000 through September 23, 
2001 (approximately 18 months). 2 Ms. Williams states 
that the Board of Supervisors approved the minivan lease 
agreement with Cerenio Management Group (CMG) 
under the prior Paratransit Broker Agreement 
(Resolution 172-97-46). Under the proposed agreement, 
Intelitran would sublease the minivans to the 3 taxicab 
companies which already participate in the Paratransit 
Program (Luxor Cab, Town Cab and Yellow Cab) and 
which currently have a sublease with CMG for use of the 
vans. Ms. Williams states that the City's lease agreement 
with Intelitran would be unchanged from the City's lease 



1 The Paratransit Program client purchases a book of script worth $30. The client pays $3 for the 
$30 script book, thus receiving a subsidy of $27 or 90 percent. 

2 The City purchased the minivans. at a cost of $38,541 per van. between November of 1997 to 
September 1998, and leased the minivans to Cerenio Management Group under the prior 
Paratransit Broker Agreement. Ms. Williams states that the useful life of such minivans is three 
years. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



agreement with CMG and that revenue payable by 
Intelitran to the City under this lease agreement is 
$19,297.24, monthly, or $231,566.88 annually. According 
to Ms. Williams, when the subject lease agreement 
expires in September of 2001, Muni would purchase 30 
additional minivans and enter into a new lease agreement 
with Intelitran, subject to Board of Supervisors approval. 

Ms. Williams states that the total approximate five-year 
allocation for taxi services is $26,705,527, and the 
$231,566.88 annual lease amount payable by Intelitran to 
the City is included in this total annual allocation for taxi 
services. Attachment I contains the annual allocation for 
taxi services, totaling $26,705,527 for the five-year period, 
which includes the annual $231,566.88 amount for the 
minivan h 

Ms. Williams states that the allocation for taxi services in 
FY 2000-2001. the first full year of the proposed 
agreement, would be $5,067,079. Ms. Williams reports 
that expenditures for taxi services in FY 1998-99 under 
the Paratransit Broker Agreement with CMG were 
$4,545,958.21 and for the first five months in FY 1999- 
2000 (from July 1. 1999 through November 30, 1999) were 
$2,] 17,302. 

6. According to Ms. Williams, and as noted in Attachment 
IV. Mums projected expenditures of $66,420,375 for the 
five-year Paratransit Program, from April 1, 2000 
through March 31. 2005 are based on a 4 percent annual 
COLA. Ms. Williams states that, although the total 
projected cost of the five-year Paratransit Broker 
Agreement is $66,420,375. PTC required that the 
competing companies only bid on the administrative costs 
portion of the total five-year Paratransit Broker 
Agreement cost of $66,420,375. Attachment IV states the 
reason for proposing the five-year allocation of 
$10,961,193 for administrative costs, which is based on 
the five-year bid for administrative costs of SI 0.874.095, 
submitted by Intelitran. plus a cost of living adjustment 
added by PTC. Based on the information provided in 
Attachment IV, the Budget Analyst recommends that the 
proposed resolution be continued, to allow PTC to 
renegotiate the Paratransit Broker Agreement with 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Intelitran, to provide for five-year administrative costs of 
$10,874,095, as proposed by Intelitran in the RFP process, 
and not the five-year administrative costs of $10,961,193. 
which includes the cost of living adjustment, as proposed 
in this resolution. Such cost of living increases should 
begin after completion of the first year of tho contract. 
Therefore, the total contract amount would be deovased 
by $87,098 ($10,961,193 less $10,874,095), resulting in a 
total contract cost of $66,333,277 ($66,420,375 less 
$87,098). 

7. As noted in Attachment IV, Ms. Williams states that, 
under the prior agreement with CMG, the amount of 
money budgeted each year for the Paratransit Program 
was based on utilization and expenditures for the prior 
year and on the amount of available funding from the 
various funding sources. Administrative costs payable to 
CMG were negotiated annually and could not exceed 
14.25 percent of the total Paratransit budget for the year. 
Ms. Williams states that in FY 1998-99, which was the 
final full year of the Paratransit Broker Agreement with 
CMG, administrative costs payable to CMG were 
$1,637,894 or 14.18 percent of the total Paratransit 
Program expenditures of $11,551,079. Ms. Williams also 
states that administrative costs for FY 2000-2001, which 
is the first full year of the proposed Paratransit Broker 
Agreement with Intelitran, would be $2,138,661, or 16.77 
percent of the total projected Paratransit Program 
expenditures of $12,753,522. According to Ms. Williams, 
the percentage for administrative costs is 2.59 percentage 
points more (16.77 percent less 14.18 percent) because the 
proposed Paratransit Broker Agreement with Intelitran 
requires more administrative tasks than the prior 
Paratransit Broker Agreement with CMG. 

8. As explained by Ms. Williams in Attachment IV, 
Intelitran was selected as the contractor for the 
Paratransit Program by the second selection committee, 
which scored CMG and Intelitran, based on the proposal 
that each proposer submitted. The selection committee 
assigned points, out of 1000 possible points, based on each 
proposer's work plan on (a) user-related, provider-related, 
and administrative-related tasks (assigned a 45 percent 
weight), (b) the proposer's background and experience 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 2, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

(assigned a 25 percent weight), and (c) the proposed 
administrative costs for the five-year contract (assigned a 
30 percent weight). Based on these criteria, the second 
selection committee gave Intelitran 929 points and CMG 
865 points. 

9. Attachment V, provided by Muni, contains an 
explanation of public hearings regarding consumer 
complaints and compliments regarding both Intelitran 
and CMG. 

10. Attachment \1 provides actual total expenditures and 
administrative expenditures for the Paratransit Program 
for FY 1994-95 through FY 1998-99. 

Recommendations: Continue the proposed resolution. pending the 
renegotiation of the Paratransit Broker Agreement with 
Intelitran to provide for five-year administrative costs of 
$10,874,095, resulting in a total contract amount of 
$66,333,277, in accordance with Comment No. 6. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



ent By: 



4159236307; 



Jan-25-00 2:40PM; Page 4/7 

Attachment I 







MlOOCBOffln^rt 

aicomocy^r'-acaoi 










^; » S ifl -^ o> CO t- 




u\ 


to cm oi CO* cm" «-" O 1-" 




S o 


■" •*• ■"£ ^ oo co co cp 
cocoincA (»m in oi 
«&</>&<» »-" o" 






» T- 




w 






O CO CO CO O 9) CO 






sgocswN co 

* CO N S CO h» 








3 


co* M N-* ■«■' in" o" 

c» co co co o cS 




co 
o 


f»- V f>- *» T~ T- 




> 


W» 




LL 


CNN o eon «- 

1/3 CM 00 OJ W CO ® 

h-_ ©_ •■? l^ co co 








CO 


in" i- en ■» co" tt 

NN N (5 O ■* 

r- jr r* «» t- i- 
t^ try (yj tyy — r 




© 




CM 

o 




I 


CO t- 00 00 O CO o 
co n s en w s h<- 
co »q c» s- co co_ 




CM 
O 


CO 00 •»- ^f o" Q) 
W in CM CO © 3> 




O 


N- 1 1*- W» t- O 
i* fA <A *& ^ 




fc 


rt oi if a! o (0 i- 

(OOIOIOIOO CO 
CM 00 U3 N-_ o 35 <q 




5 


cm" iC q" tt co' i<* op' 

CO ■* IO CO t* Ol CO 

r«- tr f-- v» (A «A t- 

«r» «/¥ </> ^ 








Q 




> 


M 




a. 


lOlflrOOO «- 

co in co O W 00 co 

CO CO_ O^ CM CD T 




si 


n." a> co* co" co m" 




r>» o o i- cm co 






«- »- cm o» t» m 








Li. CO 






if CO N Q O CO CO 
CO CO CM 5 V* CO 00 




CO CO O 00 CO CO 


E 




co" o" "*" o" cm" *■" 


C 


o cm w i- »- r>- 


E 


3 


t- w t- w <r> cm 


r 


</></» <r> 


3 


CD 




-** 


55 








• 






O) 




3 

"5 

5 


-o 




3 




co 




V) c 


05 




el 

Costs 
sts 
anal Tool 

% inflatio 


> 

V3 
C5 




■4-" 
(A 

"c 
E 




Total Personn 
Contracted Se 
Miscellaneous 
Equipment Co 
Video Educate 
Profit 

Neg. adjust (3 
Total Cost 
Grand Total 


< 





co co co co m 

a o co — N- 
<- w n oi n 



o» © 05 « ■* 

o" co" •»-" <o" co" 

«- CM T" T- CO 

oo- w» </> »» «"£ 



CO O CO o 



Sco m 
N- CN 

co cm en 



E 
E 

3 
(0 

(0 

o 

u 

o 



0) 

</> 

■o 


E 

UJ 

"D 
C 

n 

B 
O 



> E 

LL C7> 



2 10 to -q - CO 
^ MM N 

"-. "^ *H <H °l 
o" V m" co" m" 

oi i- co w ^ 
•»- en in co co 



■- OB t -" 

O) CO "3 CM »- 

co n q in m 

t" o> cm" r>-" ^ : 

v tr co i- o) 

riOtlON 

cm' m' cm" to* co" 

t/5 C/> (A «/» t- 



Or- 0«(0 

r>>- o m rt co 

CO CO ▼ CN CO 

eji" 5" r-" cm" co" 

03 05 CO 00 CO 
O CO CO CO CM 




£ - o 

"j O P 



Attachment II 



Paratransit Broker Services Contractor Selection 



Committee #1 

1. Griffith Humphrey, Paratransit Coordinating Council 

2. Karen Young Simmons, Paratransit Coordinating Council 
Ann Flemer, Metropolitan Transportation Commission 
Priscilla Kays, Sacramento Regional Transit 
Nancy Whelan, MUNI 



Committee ^2 

1. Vincent Behan, Paratransit Coordinating Council 

2. Debbie Mackin, Paratransit Coordinating Council 

3. Laurie Hodas, Paratransit Coordinating Council 

4. Cynthia Petersen, Golden Gate Transit 

5. James Albert. MUM 



Attachment II 





A 1 8 I 


c 1 


° 1 


E 1" 


F 1 


6 1 


H 1 


' I 


J 


1 


3RCKER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 


I -.1 _ . 


: 


=ROJEC [SAN FRANCISCO 


I I _j : I • 1 


i 


PROJECT expense statement 


1 1 1. I 1 ' 

1 


5 
6 


1 

1 


Starnxi 11999-2000 I1999-2O0O 12000-2001 .2001-2002 '2002-2003 ,2003-2001 2004-20C5 
3u0qet amialcosc i3mcrttr4s anrualcosl 'a/rxjaicost onrxcalccEtt arrx»C05l .9morw 


; 


73A. AC « 1 DESCRIPTION 


iii. • r 


3 


1 


1 1 -j • j 1 


10 


5094 1 LABOR CHARGES -OlRECT OVERSIGHT 


1831' 


13 625 00 . 


3 406 25 • 


13 625 00 : 


13 625 00 I 


13625 00 


13 625 00 ' 


10 213 75 


" 


5095 1 LABOR CHARGES - MIS SUPPORT 


200001 


341.00 : 














13 


5097 LABOR CHARGES • ACCOUNTING 1 


i 








I 










i SUBTOTAL -SUPPORT STAFF LABOR I 


25 13100 ; 
















15 


5098 1 FRINGE ALLOCATION 


5730 82' 


3.396 18 i 


349 05 i 


3 7396 18 


3. J6 18 I 


3.396 18 ■ 


3 396 18 


2 622S5 


16 


i 


1 


17 


l TOTAL SUPPORT STAFF W/FRINGE 


30 91132 1 


18 162 18 i 














'3 




i [ ■ l i 


13 


ON SITE STAFF 


59 121 58 ■ 


563 660 CO 














:o 


iFRINGE 


13 597 96 ! 
















-JT 


(SUBTOTAL 


72 719 51 1 


693 301 30 ' 


173 325 45 ■ 


714 100 85 


735 523 88 I 


757 589 60 


730 317 23 


602.735 10 


12 




1 


13 


1 TOTAL ON SITE LABOR 


72.719 51 ' 


693 301 30 l 














n 




| | l i , l 


J' 


CONTRACTED SERVICES 


1 , ' . 1 


46 


Jacwe Bessef CBE 


20 386 08 ; 


407 620 80 












352 :'o -4 


»7 


Auolof 


000 | 
















4 8 


i travel trainers 


oca i 


20 CCO 00 1 














»g 


Cecil Cam Svsiem Scppon 


000 ■ 


toco 00: 














- 2 




! 


51 


' TOTAL CONTRACTED SERVICES 


20 386 08 | 


4735 620 SO 


109 655 20 






171027 735 


183 893 17 


372 366 74 


-j 






" 


INSURANCE 


1 


-"6 


1 




• 1 


5211i TELEPHONE -LOCAL 


5 000 00 i 


30 OCO CO | 














u 


( 


1 


54 


1 TOTAL UTILITIES 


5000 00 1 


30 000 00 


7iO0 00 ; 


30 COO 00 ' 


30 000 00 


30 COO 00 


30 000 00 


272 SCO CO 


SS 






66 


5201 FACILITY RENT 


50 OCO CO I 


163 OCO CO 


42 OCO CO 




168 000 00 


163 000 00 


163 CCO CO I 


1 26 CCO CO 


S7 




; 


Sfl 


LICENSES 




BR 


i 


1 


70 


FUEL MAINT 1 REPAIR (VEHICLE! 


ecoco ' 


4 300 00 


1 200 00 


4 3CO0O 


18C0 00 


4 600 00 


13CO0O 


3 ;:o cc 


; i 




i 


77 


[TELEPHONE MAINTENANCE 


000 1 


6 OCO 00 


1500 CO 




6 000 CO 


6 CCO 00 


6 CCO 00 ■ 


4 500 CO 


73 


'COMPUTER MAINTENANCE 


1 OCO CO I 


6000 00 1 


1 50000 ; 


6 000 00 | 


6000 00 ■ 


5.000 00 


6 CCO 00 . 


4 SCO oo 


■j 


: COPIER MAINTENANCE 


1 • 1 


75 

75 








I 1 I 


77 


■MAINTENANCE 4 REPAIR OTHER 


1 COO 00 1 


i : :ca co 














73 




I . 


33 


5259: TRAVEL -OTHER 


1 502 CO i 


4 5C0 00 1 


1 SCO CO 


4 500 00 


1 500 CO 


4 SCO CO 


1 SCO 00 


2 :c: :c 


W 


5321 I EDUCATION A TRAINING 


10 CCO 00 1 


16 COO CO i 














37 




















w 


1 " " ' 


: 


;o 


52H OTHER TAXES 


1 


2 CCO 00 1 


500 CO 






2CCOO0 


2 CCO CO 




32 


'APPEALS PANEL 




3 SCO 00 i 














W 


5201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 


10 COO CO 


33 CCO CO 














)7 


5303 XEROX/DUPLICATING 




40 CCO CO 


10 CCO CO 






10 000 CO 


10 CCO CO 




53 


SCRIP PRINTING 




10 CCO 00 












2: :cc :o 


39 

• : n 






3 SCO 00 














531! POSTAGE/SHIPPING 


10 CCO CO 


38 SCO 00 


22 200 CO 


33 300 CO 


38 3CO CO 


33 3COCO 


33 3C0 CO 


6c see :o 


■:: 


5312 OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 


1 


1 3C0C0 














■ -j 


53H ADVERTISING 


3 CCO 00 


1 5C0 00 ' 














I0F 


5601 VEHICLE INSURANCE 




2 4C0C0 
















GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE 


21 721 51 ' 


235 722 61 


58 330 65 






257 580 46 


755 707 33 






> 




'•■'- 


.TOTAL OTHER COSTS 


52 724 61 


457 322 61 i 


:C0 33065 






135 130 46 


1S2 507 38 


3.r -:■- _j 




' • i 




' i - 


1 


1 ' i 




' : 




' 




















■ 124 ° 26 — i — '-^^ — ; ; ; ; 




i ^ 


'COMPUTER EQUIPMENT LEASE 


i 5 325 43 . 


31 952 35 i 


7 988 21 ■ 




31 952 35 


31 952 85 


31 352 35 


22 j-.i :4 




iFURNITURE LEASE 


1 984 08 > 


1 1 904 18 


















, 2 768 71 1 


16 612.5 
















■VEHICLE LEASE 


721 43 


4 328 88 


1 082 22 


1328 38 . 


4 323 38 


4 223 88 


1 323 33 


3 21c 55 


.12 




1 




■ TOTAL ECUIFMENT LEASE COSTS 


10 799 75 , 


61798 17 














'i 









, 2 




'. 




■ 




I 1 ' 




' 


SUMMARY 


' 


1 


12 


SUPPORT LAECR 


• 25 134 CO' 


14 7E6 SO 


363150 . 


11 766 CO 


■J 766.00 










ON SITE LAECR 


1 31255 58 l 


578.42600 


Ill 6C8 50 


595 335 30 


612 752 39 


620 632 50 


649. 1 70 30 


501 lit 32 


■ 


. 


i . 1 


1 




■ FRINGE - SUPPORT LAECR 


i 5 720 32 


3 3'36 13 


349 C5 


.1 196.11 




3 396 13 






■ 


FRINGE • ON SITE LABOR 


13.597 96 


129.541 W 


32.410 45 


132 !3I CS 


137 536 39 


■4! 963 10 








.FRINGE TOTAL 


, 19 378 73 


133 037 93 


13 259 50 


136 927 23 




14- 339.23 








l TOTAL PERSONNEL 


i 103 624 26 


711 163 98 


177 366 00 


732 263 03 


75368606 


775 751 78 


703 (79 49 


616 12-3 15 


' 


- 


' 20 386 03 


133 52030 


10965; .') 

.■'73 ]>0'1 


147 199 4 2 
150591 .-J 


«8 531 " 

721973 12 


47 • 377 |3 
77 1 4.40 46 


183 398 1 7 
73 7 207 M 


773 we 34 

542 750 33 




1 EQUIPMENT COSTS 
VIOEO EDUCATIONAL TOOLS 


10 710 - 

i OCO 


61 793 17 
OCO 


16 19992 

OCO 


«' 719 17 

'* 7CO DO 


54 798 47 

a 00 


.4 -11 47 
OCO 


64 798 17 
OCO 


43 !S8 35 

: ::. 


• j 


PROFIT 


. 12 335 90 


91 71! 66 














u 


Nf , IC'J f-'H '% .Ml 1. 17,1 .N rAi , H 


i ; 




14 


2 TOTAL COST 


;7 1 UJ 73 


; 7.-' 77< -7 


















. ' 


— ' 1 






1 1 1 


I I 



Sent By: 



4159236307; 



To: 
From: 

Date: 

Subject: 



Jan-27-00 4:17PM; Page 5/6 

Attachment IV 



Page 1 of 2 



MEiVfORANDUM 



Scvenn Campbell 
Budget Analyst Office 

Annette Williams 
Accessible Services 

January 27. 2000 

Paratransii Broker Contract 



For the past 18 years, MUNT has contracted out pkratransit services to a Paratransit Broker who performs 
many important functions. These include managing subcontracts with paratransit service providers, 
monitoring service quality, administering client eligibility, managing the sale of fare instruments, and 
acting on behalf of the Public Transportation Department as the principal customer service 
representative for paratransii services. 

The current Paratransit Broker Agreement began ^n October 1 , 1991 for a four year and nine month 
period and was extended for an additional three-ytar period to ensure a smooth implementation of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. The Federal Transit Administration requires that such contracts be 
competitively bid every five years, however, in 1996, MUNI sought and received approval from the 
FTA for a three year extension. During this selectjon process the contract has been additionally extended 
through March 31, 2000. 

In November, 1998, MUNI issued a Request for Proposals to select a Paratransit Broker for the new 
contract period. An evaluation team comprised of two consumer representatives from the Paratransit 
Coordinating Council, two transit professionals frpm outside of San Francisco, and one MUNI 
representative convened to review the proposals trjal were received in response to the RFP. 

The Request for Proposals outlined the scope of wjork and requisite organizational capacity of the 
Paratransit Broker and specified the customer taskp, service provider tasks, and administrative tasks 
necessary for the administration of paratransit services. The evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP 
allocated 45% weight to the content of the work pjan, including user, provider, and administrative tasks, 
25% weight to proposer background, and 30% to budget. The RFP was subsequently approved by the 
Public Transportation Commission at its November 10, 1998 meeting. 

The evaluation team shortlisted two finalists, Cerc^io Management Group, and Lntelitran, for an oral 
presentation and interview. Following the intervidws, the evaluation team developed a list of strengths 
and weaknesses, and scored each Proposer based Upon l) the quality of its work plan from a customer, 
provider, and administrative perspective (45%), ii)its organizational capacity and experience (25%), and 
hi) its cost proposal (30%). The scoring process resulted in a very close point spread of 1 points 
between the two bidders, out of a total of 1000 poijits. 



As a result of this close point spread. MUNI requested both bidders to propose measures to address the 
weaknesses that were identified by the evaluation ^earn, as well as any changes to the Broker work plan. 



By: 



4159236307: 



Jan-27-00 4:18PM; Page 6/6 

Attachment Iv* 

ft — 



T 



Page 

Memo, Budget Analyst Office January 27, 2l 100 Page 2 

staffing plan, and cost proposal that might result jrom such measures, lntelitran and Cerenio 
Management Group both presented programs to address the weaknesses identified by the evaluation 
team, and modified their work plans, staffing plar s, and cost proposals accordingly. MUNI staff 
recommended that lntelitran be selected as the new Paratransit Broker. At its April 6, 1999 meeting;, rhe 
Public Transportation Commission requested that a new selection committee be convened, with more 
consumer representation to review and rescore all the submissions from the proposers, including the 
proposals and negotiation materials, and to condu:t interviews with both proposers. 

Based on the direction from the Public Transport* tion Cornmission, a second selection committee was 
convened composed of three members of the Par* transit Coordinating Council, as well as an 
independent specialist in the area of accessible transit, and a MUNI representative. The selection 
committee was provided with all of the materials rom the proposers including all the materials which 
were presented as part of the negoations including the final bids. The committee developed a list of 
strengths and weaknesses of each proposer and then conducted interviews with both proposers. Tne 
selection committee then evaluated the proposers using the same matrix as the first selection committee, 
again assessing the content of each proposer's wo 'k plan on user-related, provider-related, and 
administrative-related tasks (45%), the proposer's background and experience (25%), and the proposed 
cost (30%). Selection committee members scored the proposals, and subsequently scored each bidder 
after the interviews. lntelitran received the highesi score, with 929 out of 1 000 points, compared to 865 
for Cerenio Management Group. 

Cerenio Management Group bid $10,796,629 for he five-year administrative costs and lntelitran bid 
$10,874,095 for the five-year administrative costs The actual five-year administrative cost in the 
contract is $10,961,193. The contract amount differs from the bid amount due to the change in the start 
date of the contract. The bid was submitted and tie contract negotiated by lntelitran for a 5 year coiilracl 
period July 1, 1 999 through June 30, 2004. In Ju y of 1 999 when the second selection process was 
completed a revised contract was submitted to the Commission for a November 1, 1999 start date. That 
contract was modified to allow a cola for the contiact because the contract period was now extended 4 
months into a 6' h fiscal year, FY 04-05. Costs for Lhat sixth year period would be significantly higher 
than the 1" year of the contract and a 3% per year ;scalation is included in the contract for labor costs. 
That cola which is included in the contract is $87,098. The time period of the contract was subsequenty 
extended a second time to begin April 1 , 2000, no additional cola has been included for that time period, 
because when the start date was modified a seconl time the PTC did not modify any other contract 
terms. lntelitran has agreed to forego this additional cost of living adjustment. 

The projected expenditures of $66,420,375 for the five-year Paratransit Agreement is based on Muni's 
projected expenditures for the five year contract period and includes both administrative and service 
costs. San Francisco paratransit is comprised of three main modes of service. Approximately 40% of the 
paratransit budget is expended on the taxi service, 25.5% is expended on the group van services and 18% 
is expended on the lift lift van service. The yearly expenditures include a 4% annual cost of living 
adjustment. The total contract amount was detern ined independently of the submitted bids, although 
the actual amount allocated to administrative cost* was determined by the administrative cost bids 
submitted by CMG and lntelitran. The administrative costs ($10,961,193) were generated based on 
Tntelirran's bid submittal plus a cost of living adjustment. 

Under the prior contract with CMG, the amount o| money budgeted each year for the Paratransit 
Program was based on use and expenditures for tbi previous year and on the amount of available 
funding. CMG's administrative costs were based pn an annually negotiated administrative budget 
which could not exceed 14.25% of the total Paratransit budget for the year. CMG's administrative costs 
for the final full year of their contract (FY98-99) Were $1,637,894 out of the total budget of 
$11,551,079. 



I 



Sent By: ; 4159236307; Jan-27-00 5:00PM; Page 4/7 

Attachmen t V 
Page 1 of 
San Francisco Public Transportation Department 

949 Presidio Avenue, Saij Francisco, CA 94115 415 673 6864 




F. 



MEMORANDUM 



To: Scvcrin Campbell 

Budget Analyst Office 

From: Annette Williams 

Accessible Services 

Date: January 27, 2000 

Subject: Parairansit Broker Service 



The purpose of this memo is to summarize tht areas of paratransit provision which have been of 
most concern to persons who have provided ifcpul and complaints to Muni, as well as to discuss 
the methods whereby Muni staff incorporated! this feedback into the Request for Proposals (RFPj 
and new Paratransit Broker contract. 



Muni Accessible Services has a long history of working with Us consumer advisory body, the 
Paratransit Coordinating Council, in planning* San Francisco's paratransit services. Therefore the 
process to select a new Paratransit Broker wai shaped by a high level of input from consumers 
and agency representatives. Over the years, njany concerns have been raised with regard to 
paratransit service in San Francisco; listed below are the main areas of concern. 



Customer Service 

• Staff courtesy to paratransit clientele 

• Responsiveness of staff to customer inquiries 

• High level of bureaucracy in Broker operations 

• Problems with administrative processing ^f scrip purchases 

Language and Cultural Competency for Non-fo plish Speaking Persons 

• Lack of sufficient response to requests fori information in other languages 

• Provision of information, applications and brochures in other languages 



4159236307; Jan-27-00 5:00PM; Page 5/7 

Attachment V 
Page 2 of 3 

January li, 2000 p a g e 2 



customers with questions regarding ADA 



Memo, Budget Analyst Office 



ADA Eligibility 

• Ability and willingness to provide help to 
eligibility 

• Thoroughness of application review 

i 

• Assurance that standards used for eligibility determinations comply with the ADA 

f 

i 

Communication between Transportation Providers and Group Van Agencies 

• Assurance that providers communicate with group van agencies as problems arise 

• Assurance tliat substitute drivers are wcll-{rained to take over routes when regular drivers are 
out 

• Problem-solving and ability to be proactive around improving service delivery to best meet 
customer needs 



Service Reliability 

• Taxi service reliability 

• Ramp taxi service reliability 

• Lilt van reliability 



Relationship to Community Based Organizations 

• Maintaining open lines of cornmunicationiwith community based organizations serving 
seniors and persons with disabilities 

• Improving outreach 

I . 

Muni staff factored this consumer and agency! feedback into the development of the Request for 
Proposals (RFP) and the Paratransit Broker contract. A draft version of the RFP was sent out in 
advance to the PCC members, and then discussed at the September 30, 1998 PCC meeting. 
Many comments were received from consumers and agency representatives, which were then 
appropriately incorporated into the final version of the RFP. 



Consumer satisfaction was a priority throughout the entire selection process. Proposers were 
asked to address areas of concern raised by consumers and incorporate measures to address them 
in their proposals. Two consumers were part if the first selection committee, and three 
consumers were pari of the second selection oommittee, ensuring strong consumer 
representation. 



Sent By: ; 4159236307; Jan-27-00 5:00PM; Page 6/7 

Attachment V 
Memo, Budget Analyst Office January 2J7. 2000 Pa ^ftge^3 of 3 



Finally, each area of concern has been addressed in the contract deliverables (please see 
"Pararransil Broker Contract Deliverables" fot complete details). For example, to help ensure 
that services are culturally and linguistically competent, the new contract requires front line staff 
who speak Cantonese, Spanish and Russian tq handle telephone calls and the intake counter, as 
well as the provision of informational materials in at least Cantonese, Spanish and Russian. 



During the entire selection process, there havej been many opportunities for public comment. 
Various aspects of the paratransit broker selection process have been on the agenda numerous 
times of diverse bodies such as the Pararransii Coordinating Council, the Public Transportation 
Commission, the Finance Committee of the B^ard of Supervisors and the System Performance 
and Oversight Subcommittee of the Transportation Authority, thereby providing many 
opportunities for public comment. At the Janjiary 18, 2000 meeting of the System Performance 
and Oversight Subcommittee of the Transportation Authority, the paratransit broker contract was 
the sole item on the agenda. This provided thfc public a forum to air then- concerns and 
complaints. Many specific complaints were rfcade concerning both Cercnio Management Group 
(the current Paratransit Broker contractor) and* Intelitran (the recommended Paratransit Broker 
contractor). Representatives from both Cerenfo Management Group and Intelitran were available 
at this meeting to speak to consumer complaints and concerns. 



nt By: ; 



4159236307; 



Jan-27-00 5:00PM: 



Page 7/7 
Attachment VI 



San Francisco Public Transportation Department 

T 



949 Presidio Avenue, Saq Francisco. CA 94-115 415.673.6864 




MEMORANDUM 



To: Scverin Campbell 

Budget Analyst Office 

From: Annette Williams 

Accessible Services 

Date: January 27, 2000 

Subject: CMG Administrative Costs 



I am writing this memo per your request to provide the paratransit administrative expenditures for the 
past five years. Cerenio Management Group (ClwG) has been the Paratransit Broker for this entire 
period. The administrative budget has been negotiated annually, with the total amount approved not to 
exceed a set percentage (specified by the contract terms) of the annual paratransit budget. Due to 
fluctuations in service demand, expenditures have often been less than the total budgeted amount. 



FY 


Actual Expenditures 


Admin Expenditure^ 


94-95 


$9,346,312 


$1,112,4^9 


95-96 


$9,763,358 


$1,118,320 


96-97 


$9,799,236 


$1,584,877 


97-98 


$10,234,067 


$1,623,3^4 


98-99 


$10,948,794 


$1,637,8$4 



Conclusions drawn from a comparison of the existing contract expenditures to the new contract may be 
misleading because Broker responsibilities havefreen increased significantly in the new contract. This is 
shown by fact that both proposers bid significantly higher annual administrative costs for the new 
contract. 



Muni did not negotiate a final administrative corjtract with CMG as they were not the recommended 
proposer. Based on CMG's slightly lower administrative cost bid after preliminary negotiations, it is 
possible that were they chosen as Paratransit Brdker, the administrative costs could be slightly less than 
under Intelitran. CMG bid $10,796,629 in five-year administrative costs and Intehtran bid $10,874,095 
in five-year administrative costs, a difference of Jess than one percent. Paratransit service level costs for 
transportation for the next 5 year period should ijot differ regardless of which company functions as 
Paratransit Broker because that service would ba competitively bid by either Broker. 




City and County of San Francisco city Haii 



1 Dr. Carlton B. 



Meeting Minutes GOVERNMENT DOC SECTION 

Finance and Labor Committee Ma,n L 'brary 



Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom 
Clerk: Mary Red 



Wednesday, February 09, 2000 10:00 AM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10:15 a.m. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 



AGENDA CHANGES FEB ] * 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REGULAR AGENDA 



991482 [Planning Department Enforcement Program] 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to consider the Planning Department's enforcement program, including how the enforcement program 

will be enhanced to vigorously enforce the Planning Code and terms of conditional use authorizations and how 

the positions that were approved in the FY 1999-2000 budget will be used to expand enforcement. 

7/26/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

8/1 1/99, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; 

Mary Gallagher, City Planning Department; Harry Stem, Friends of Noe Valley; Eleanore Gerhardt, Friends of Noe Valley; Bemie 

Chodan; Arron Peskin, Telegraph Hill; Tracey Hughes; Roberta Caravelli; Christina Stout, Manna District; Lois Scott. Local 21. 

Supervisor Bierman, Supervisor Ammiano. 

9/29/99, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Mary Gallagher. 

Zoning Administrator; Supervisor Ammiano; Larry Badiner, City Planning Department; Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Bierman; Man is 

Phillips, Tenderloin, Harry Stem, Friends of Noe Valley; Patricia Vaughey, Cow Hollow; John Barbey. Coalition of S F Neighborhoods, 

Jacob Goldberg, Richmond District, Scott Durcanin. Russian Hill Neighbors Association; Anastasia Yovanopoulos, Noe Tenants 

Association. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Supenisor Yee: Larry Badiner, City Planning 
Department: Marvis Phillips, North of Market Planning Coalition: Jim Corrigan. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco I Printed at 5:39 PM on 2/10M0 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes February 9, 2000 



991307 [Final Negative Declaration, Jobs-Housing Linkage Ordinance! 
Supervisors Teng, Katz 

Resolution adopting Final Negative Declaration, finding and determining that the Jobs-Housing Linkage 
Ordinance will have no significant impact on the environment, and adopting and incorporating findings of 
final negative declaration. (Planning Commission) 

(Final Negative Declaration adopted and issued on April 27, 1999; companion measure to File 991304.) 

Supervisor Bierman dissenting in Committee. 

6/30/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Housing and Social Policy Committee Companion measure to File 99IJ04 

1/12/00, TRANSI I RKI I) to Finance Hid I abort ommitlcc 

2/2/00, CONTINUED Heard in Committee Consideration continued 10 February 9, 2000 Speakers llane) Rose. Budget Analyst. 

Gerald Green. Director. Planning Department. Supervisor Ammiano, Supers isor Yec Supervisor Kal? requested to be added as sponsor 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Anal) sv Julian Low Supervisor Katz's Aide Gerald 
Green, Director of Planning; Supervisor Bierman. Supervisor Ammiano, TedLakey, Deputy CityAttoi 
Calvin Welch, Jim Gonzalez Information Technology Coalition; Marie Jones, SF Partnership Robert 
McCarthy. Chris Moore. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Noes: 1 - Bierman 



991304 [Planning Code amendment to rename "Office Affordable Housing Production Program" as the "Jobs- 
Housing Linkage Program" and to apply the program to hotel, entertainment, and retail space 
according to square footage| 
Supervisors Teng, Katz 

Ordinance amending Planning Code by amending Sections 313, 313.1, 313.2. 313.3. 313 4. 313.5. 313.6, 
313.7, 313.8, 313.9, 313.10, 313.1 1. 313.12. 313.13, and 313.14, and by adding Section 313.15, to rename the 
"Office Affordable Housing Production Program" as the "Jobs-Housing Linkage Program," to apply the 
program to all new and expanded hotel space of at least 25.000 square feet, to all new and expanded 
entertainment space of at least 50,000 square feet, and to all new and expanded retail space of at least 100,000 
square feet, and by amending Section 314.1 of the childcare ordinance to conform to the new definition of 
"hotel." (Planning Department) 

(Amends Sections 313, 313 1.313 2. 313 3. 313 4. 313 5. 313 6. 313 ". 313 S. 313 9. 313 10. 313 11. 313 12, 

313.13,313.14. 314.1; adds Section 313.15; Final Negative Declaration dated April 27. 1999; Planning 

Commission Resolution No. 14832 adopted June 3, 1999 recommending proposed amendments to the 

Planning Code.) 

6/30/99. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Housing and Social Policy Committee FEE AD REQUIRED BEFORE ITEM IS 

SCHEDULED. 

1/12/00. TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Comminee 

2/2/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Consideration continued to February 9. 2000 Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, 

Gerald Green, Director, Planning Department, Supervisor Ammiano. Supervisor Yee Supervisor Katz requested to be added as sponsor 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Julian Low. Supervisor Katz's Aide; Gerald 

Green, Director of Planning; Supervisor Bierman. Supervisor Ammiano; TedLakey. Deputy City Attorney, 

Calvin Welch; Jim Gonzalez. Information Technology Coalition; Marie Jones. S F. Partnership, Robert 

McCarthy; Chris Moore. Amendment of the Whole reflecting technical amendments from Supervisor 

Ammiano. Supervisor Bierman dissenting in committee. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Noes: 1 - Bierman 



On and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 5:39 PM on 110 00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



February 9, 2000 



000276 [Planning Code amendment to rename "Office Affordable Housing Production Program" as the "Jobs- 
Housing Linkage Program" and to apply the program to hotel, entertainment, and retail space 
according to square footage] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter II, Part II of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Planning Code) by 
amending Sections 313, 313.1, 313.2, 313.3, 313.4, 131.5, 313.6, 313.7, 313.8, 313.9, 313.10, 313.11, 313.12, 
313.13, and 313.14, and by adding Section 313.15, to rename the "Office Affordable Housing Production 
Program" as the "Jobs-Housing Linkage Program," to apply the program to all new and expanded hotel space 
of at least 25,000 square feet, to all new and expanded entertainment space of at least 50,000 square feet, and 
all new and expanded retail space of at least 100,000 square feet, and to all new and expanded research, 
development space of at least 50,000 square feet, and by amending Section 314.1 of the childcare ordinance to 
conform to the new definition of "Hotel." 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Julian Low, Supenisor Katz's Aide; Gerald 
Green, Director of Planning; Supenisor Bierman; Supenisor Ammiano; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; 
Calvin Welch; Jim Gonzalez, Information Technology Coalition; Marie Jones, S.F. Partnership; Robert 
McCarthy; Chris Moore. To be referred to City Planning for review and comments. 
PREPARED IN COMMITTEE AS AN ORDINANCE. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000277 [Planning Code amendment to rename "Office Affordable Housing Production Program" as the "Jobs- 
Housing Linkage Program" and to apply the program to hotel, entertainment, and retail space 
according to square footage| 
Supervisor Katz 

Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter II, Part II of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Planning Code) by 
amending Sections 313, 313.1, 313.2, 313.3, 313.4, 131.5, 313.6, 313.7, 313.8, 313.9, 313.10, 313.11, 313.12, 
313.13, and 313.14, and by adding Section 313.15, to rename the "Office Affordable Housing Production 
Program" as the "Jobs-Housing Linkage Program," to apply the program to all new and expanded hotel space 
of at least 25,000 square feet, to all new and expanded entertainment space of at least 50,000 square feet, all 
new and expanded E-commercial retail space of at least 50,000 square feet, and to all other new and expanded 
retail space of at least 100,000 square feet, and to all new and expanded research, development and technology 
business service space of at least 50,000 square feet, and by amending Section 314.1 of the childcare 
ordinance to conform to the new definition of "Hotel." 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Han'ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Julian Low, Supenisor Katz's Aide; Gerald 
Green, Director of Planning; Supenisor Bierman; Supenisor Ammiano; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney ; 
Calvin Welch; Jim Gonzalez, Information Technology Coalition; Marie Jones, S.F. Partnership; Robert 
McCarthy; Chris Moore. To be referred to City Planning for review and comment. 
PREPARED IN COMMITTEE AS AN ORDINANCE. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 5:39 PM on 2/10/00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minute\ 



February <>, MM 



000069 | Authorizing the City to accept funds as a result of the settlement of litigation against various 
manufacturers of tobacco products| 

Resolution authorizing withdrawal and acceptance of tobacco settlement monies pursuant to the Memorandum 
of Understanding. (City Attorney) 

(Companion measure to File 000068) 

1/7/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Haney Rose, Budget Analyst; Michelle Sexton. Depuh City Attorney, 
Supervisor Yee 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee. Bierman, Ammiano 



000181 (Reserved Funds, Treasure Island| 

Hearing to consider release of reserved kinds. Treasure Island Development Authority (Fiscal Year 1999-2000 
Budget), in the amount of $500,000 to fund the contract for environmental monitoring services and the 
building maintenance services. (Mayor) 
1/25/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Hun ev Rose. Budget Analyst. Robert Mahoney [deputy Director. Treasure 
Island Development Authority, Supervisor Yee Amended to release Otlfy $154,675. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee. Bierman, Ammiano 



000173 |Grant to be used by the Airport to purchase light duty compressed natural gas \ehiclcs to reduce 
emissions and improve the air on terminal roadways and Bay Area cities | 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept and expend a grant in the amount of SI 16,000 from 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) for acquisition of light duty Compressed Natural 
Gas (CNG) vehicles. (Airport Commission) 

1/25/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and 1 ahor Committee Department requests this matter be calendared at the February 
9, 2000 meeting 

Heard in Committee Speakers Haney Rose. Budget Analyst; Jon Ballesteros. Airport Commission. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000073 (Approving lease between Parking Authority and Azad H. Nejad, et al. as tenant for Moscone Center 
Garage at 247-249 Third Street, to operate a mail/shipping and Internet link center at an initial base 
rent of S2.250 per monthl 

Resolution approving commercial lease for space Nos. 6 and 7 at the Moscone Center Garage (Real Estate 
Department) 

1/1 1/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers Haney Rose. Budget Analyst. Tony Delucchi. Real Estate Department. 
Supen'isor Yee. Amended on page 2. line 15 to insert the word "rear" after the word "five" 
AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 5:39 PS1 on 110V0 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



February- 9, 2000 



000226 [Department of Public Health Fiscal Years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Budget and related matters] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing to consider the following issues related to the Department of Public Health: A review of the financial 
condition of the Department of Public Health for fiscal year 1999-2000. including projections of current year 
revenues, expenditures and required General Fund support; whether a supplemental appropriation will be 
needed by DPH for fiscal year 1999-2000 and, if so, projections of the amount of such an appropriation; the 
impact of the Department's financial condition on public health and community health network programs, 
including a status report on the Department's hiring freeze, current staffing levels, planned or implemented 
reductions in service and delays in implementing planned programs, including UCSF contracted programs at 
DPH facilities; a review of progress implementing Board-approved allocations for improvements to service in 
the Pharmacy, including proposed increases in staffing and capital improvements; a review of San Francisco 
General Hospital's emergency room case load and wait times since the recent closure of Mt. Zion's emergency 
room; a review of capital and maintenance expenditures made dunng fiscal year 1999-2000, the current 
condition of the physical plant at San Francisco General Hospital and the Community Health Network and the 
Department's entire list of pending or proposed capital expenditures; and projections for fiscal year 2000-2001 
budget. 

1/31/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. Sponsor requests this matter be considered at the February 9, 
2000 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Roma Guy, President, Health Commission; Dr. 
Mitchell Katz, Director of Health; Supervisor Yee; Har\-ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's 
Office; Ed Harrington, Controller; Mr. Edwards, North of Market Coalition; Marvis Phillips; Pamela 
Johnson; Jennifer Friedenbach, Coalition on Homelessness; Dale Butler, Local 790; Nora Roman, R.N., San 
Francisco General Hospital (S.F.G.H.); Mary Magee, Staff Nurse, Birth Center. S.F G.H : Walker Dukes; Bob 
Ivory, Nurse, Emergency, S.F.G.H.; Sonya Hotchkiss; Arron Hayes, Nurse, CHN - Forensic; William 
Kramer, Renal Center; Hilary Parsons, Home Care Nurse; Larry Bradshaw, Paramedic, Fire Department; 
Lawrence Nichols, Intensive Care, S.F.G.H.; Charles Turner, Nurse, Emergency . S.F.G.H.; Supervisor 
Bierman. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000224 [Quality of life enforcement program] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing to consider the City Attorney's quality of life enforcement program and steps toward implementing 
the program. 

1/31/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. Sponsor requests this matter be considered at the February 9, 
2000 meeting. 

Continued to February 23, 2000. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman 
Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 1:58 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 5:39 P\i on 110.00 



File No. 991482 Committee Item No. 1_ 

Board Item No. 



COMMITTEE/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST* 
Committee Finance and Labor Date 2/9/00 
Board of Supervisors Meeting Date 



Cmte Board 

□ □ Motion 

□ □ Resolution 

□ □ Ordinance 

□ □ Legislative Digest 

□ □ Budget Analyst Report 

□ fj Legislative Analyst Report 

□ □ Department/Agency Cover Letter and/or Report 

□ □ Public Correspondence 

□ □ Exceeds 20 pages; see file to review 

□ □ Sent to Board in advance of agenda preparation; 

available for review at reception desk, City Hall, Room 244 

□ □ Other 

M [~J City Planning Schedule 

gg |7 J Customer Service Action Plan 

gn Q Introduction Form 

□ □ 

(Use back side if additional space is needed) 

Late Agenda Items (documents received too late for distribution to the 
Committee Members) 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 



Completed by: Gail Johnson Date 2/7/00 

Date 



"This list reflects the explanatory documents provided 



Packet Contents Checklist 2/3/00 



Cmte Board 

□ □ — 

□ □ — 

□ D _ 

□ D _ 

□ □ — 

□ □ — 

□ □ — 

□ □ _ 

an 

□ □ 

an 

an 

an 

□ □ 

an 

an 

n a 

an 

an 

an 

□ □ 

□ □ 

an 

an 

d □ 

d □ 

an 

an 

an 

□ a 

an 

□ □ 

an 

an 

an 



Packet Contents Checklist 2/3/00 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



February 3, 2000 
TO: Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 
Item 1 -99-1482 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of September 29, 1999. 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Department of City Planning 

Hearing to consider the Planning Department's 
enforcement program, including how the enforcement 
program will be enhanced to vigorously enforce the 
Planning Code and terms of conditional use authorization 
and how the positions that were approved in the FY 1999- 
2000 Budget will be used to expand enforcement. 

The FY 1999-2000 Budget as approved by the Board of 
Supervisors included a total of 13 new, fee-based positions 
for the Department of City Planning. These positions are 
funded by Planning Commission fee revenues for 
processing various Planning Department approval 
requirements and Planning Commission cases. 

Attachment I provided by the Department of City 
Planning, explains the intended organization and use of 
the eleven new, fee-based positions for the enforcement 
program. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Attachment II, provided by the Department, shows the 
$1,035,687 in cost details of the positions as included in 
the FY 1999-2000 Budget. 

At its meeting of September 29, 1999, the Finance and 
Labor Committee received preliminary information from 
the Department about its proposed Enforcement Work 
Program and proposed Enforcement Survey. 

Attachment III is a memorandum to the members of the 
Planning Commission from Mr. Larry Badiner, the 
Department's Chief of Neighborhood Planning, concerning 
the Department's Code Enforcement" Program. The 
memorandum provides information (a) on the results of a 
Code Enforcement Survey circulated to neighborhood 
organizations on the Department's Neighborhood 
Organization list and, (b) on the Department's priorities 
for its Enforcement Program. 

Mr Badiner has advised the Budget Analyst that he will 
attend the Finance Committee meeting of Februan 
2000, to respond directly to the Finance and Labor 
Committee regarding comments and questions pertaining 
to the Department's Code Enforcement Program. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



■ Attachment I 
' f age 1 or 2 

Sari Francisco Planning Department 

| FY 1999*2000 Budget Proposal: Ncighbcsiood Planning Unit's Request for Additional Staff ■ 

. . gaekpound 

•The San Francisco Planning Department is composed of six units which undertake vaiions asoects 
of current and long-range planning and environmental review for the City of San Francisco. The 
Neighborhood Planning unit within the De par t ment is staffed by 50 positions and is' organized 
geographically to undertake the review of aH types of planning applicat ion s ahdbuilding permits 
and to enforce the Planning Code. This unit engages in neighborhood ourreaeh to better understand 
neighborhood heeds and, once sufficiently funded, to develop plans, design guide l ines, enforcement 
programs, and other special programs designed to respond to the unique needs of individual 
neighborhoods. The Major Environmental Analysis Unit is staffed by 19 positions and is charged 
with conducting environmental review California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).. ■ 

In-developing the Department's fiscal year 1999-2000 budget and work program, the Neighborhood 
Planning and Major Environmental Analysis Units undertook a needs assessment which examined 
the work flow, including the type and n umb er of applications received and, for Neighborhood 
Planning, needs expressed by the neighborhoods in last year's Neighborhood Planning Survey — a 
survey of neighborhood organizations relating to planning issues. This assessment revealed that the 
number and complexity of applications has risen dramatically in the past year, and far exceeded the 
number of applications that could be reviewed by the current staffing levels, that the applications • 
' brought in fees that would fully support enough new staff members to adequately review these 
applications; that by law the money from these applications must be put to use in reviewing the 
applications; and that the number one p lanning priority for neighborhood organizations is 
enforcement. ■ 

: Ths p reposal 

To respond to this needs assessment, :the Department is asking for 13 new positions, fully paid for 
by application fees, to review applications and to enforce thePlanning Code and monitor mitigation 
measures. Two of the positions will be review projects for CBQA compliance.. This review is 
. required by law. Projects cannot be considered for approval without CEQA review. Members of 
• the public pay hefty fees to enable the Department to undertake this review. Wimoutthe new staff , 
the applicant' s money is not put to any use and their project is frozen. Eleven cf the positions will 
be assigned to Neighborhood Planning to review applications and enforce the Planning Code. 

The Neighborhood Planning Unit currently has four geographic teams, each staffed by-6-9 planners 
and one support staff, as well as several cooled, support staff, two Planner V" s andthe Zoning 
Administrator. Originally, the Department requested 18.5 positions for this unit. At that time, the. 
proposal was' to bring each of the four reams up. to 10 people each, create a fifth geographic team 
and create one "tactical" team. Tbc Mayor's office worked with the Department to arrive at a 
reduction in the rcoues' - from 18.5 to 11. With this reduction, the proposal changed by emitting 
thi fifth team. (This decision was made by the planners who staff the teams now. It was based on 
the fact that 10 persons per ip-am appears to be the optimal number of staff on a team in order to 



ffJG 06 '99 l2-.2aai SF PLUMING DD=T <!555aS42S p< g 

Attachment, I 
Fage 2 of 2 _ 

have enough expertise of various types 10 serve a neighborhood, to provide backup String vacations 
and illnesses, etc) Each of the four teams would be brought up to 10 persons each and a tactical 
team would be created under the 11-person proposal. The tactical team would nnnTraW the 
foUowing duties; 

1) develop and coordinate a neighborhood-based enforcement program (see below fox fuller 

explanation) 

2). undertake the second phase of a citywide historic resources survey 

3) revise Articles 10 and 1 1 of the Planning Code 

£) develop a training program for neighborhood planning staff to ensure planners know the code 

and implement it appropriately 

5) improve procedures 

6) facilitate neighborhood outreach fox the teams 

7) when there are unexpected influxes in applications, help the geographic teems review cases. 

The Enforcement Program 

The enforcement program would be developed and coordinated by the rardcal team and 
implemented by the geographic teams. Initially, the tactical team would work closely with 
representatives of umbrella organizations, in particular the Coalition for San Francisco's 
Neighborhoods and the Council of District Merchants, to assist in selecting neighborhoods and 
neighborhood issues on which to focus, and with representatives from the Building Department, the 
Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services and City Attorney's Office to coordinate the enforcement 
actions of other city agencies. Tne geographic fym members would then work closely, with 
individual neighborhood groups to fine-tune the program based on the needs of each neighborhood. 
For instance, if 24th Street is chosen as one of the targeted areas, the neighborhood groups their mav 
want the Department to focus on the illegal conversion of upper-story housing to office use; 
Another' neighborhood may find illegal outdoor dining their most pressing problem. Still another 
may want the enforcement work to include several use-rypes. It is estimated that a minimu m f 0Qe 
FTE of planner's time will be devoted to each of the quadrants to assure that the program continues 
to provide adequate enforcement efforts to San Francisco's neighborhoods. Additional resources 
would be allocated to the tactical t-?m for this effort. The Zoning Administrator would play a key 
role in developing the program. 

The Department would commit to semi-annual reports to the Coahtion and Council of District 
Merchants to ensure accountability and secure feedback on the program's efficacy. 

n:\ihare\yeeboL <n 






Attachment II 



t^ 


Ml 


o 


5 








^* 


<D 




U 


3 


CO 


o 




u 


CD 




u 


o 


a 


iJ 


•g 


CD 


3 


3 


c-a 


cu c\ 


j2 


CO- 


_ i 






!-( 


in 


O 


o 




1— 1 


-0>-C/> 


g 


>, 


CO _o 



— <= C O rr 3 
cv r- a> t*. o o 
ra_ r- CO iq <-_ .CO 

c*5 cm m vs b as" 

- a nf n d t 
o- 



«rt y* v> «*■ tft «, 



.►. a to 



— o co 



FO- 



- N T N - - 



— t- c\j 



o 
,o 

01 

o 



5-1 " 



cs c cm fv ^r c: 

r- a rv - s ti 

o io o cm a so 



*fr «•» V» V> V» «/> 

cnj — cm r- o es 

^ QJ O N — ID 

3_ v no n — 

«i is o d 

o io v r 



u. 

o 



is 



3 CM__ 

iff n 



CM — 

3 i»- 



•C' £ 



*& »»»»«« 



*2 o 

— in 

— re 

5! 

O c> 

2 S in t p; c\ — 



C to 



2 



— O CO CD c CO 






1 C. tl 



O £ 

^ 5T C5 CM 

= = 2 ? 

l2 5 ~ - 

v.. = S S 

•2. § " 

Q — 



I 



FEB 82 '88 11 17 STANTON JONES 4 13 3991864 

Attachment 
fage 1 of " 

iOk PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

'^wEm Qt y ""» °° unt y oi San Francisco 1660 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103. 



24] 



(«10 55W37» ™^CO*0|CSSlON ADWWOTUTION CUIMMTnANNINC/lOMNC LONG JUNCI PUN 
«**«•««» MX'HMOC PAXiW^MO* PAX IM-HM 

MEMORANDUM 



DATBj December?, 1999 

TO: Members, San Francisco Planning Commission 

FROM: Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning (558-6350) 

REf Proposed Enforcement Program Priorities 

Recommendation! No Action Requested, 

Comment* requested at December 1 6 Informational Hearing 

On November 18, 1999, the Department sent the Commission the Code Enforcement Work- 
Program and the results of the Code Enforcement Survey. On December 19, 1999, we will be 
seeking the CommMon's and the public's further input on Code Enforcement priorities 
contained in that report, and on the proposed Enforcement Program as detailed in this 
Memorandum. 

The Department's 1999-2000 Budget and Work Program calls for reinvigorating the Code 
Enforcement Program. The Work Program, as modified by the Board of Supervisors and 
presented to tho Planning Commission in September, allocates 4.8 Full Time Equivalent 
positions assigned within the Neighborhood Planning division. While the Department has been 
seeking input from neighborhood and merchant groups, the enforcement actions have taken on an 
increased priority. Currently, the Department has approximately 30 active enforcement cases 
being pursued, 

In September, the Department presented a draft Code Enforcement Work Program to the Board 
of Superviiors' Finance Committee, which has taken an active oversight role in the process. In 
mid-October, was the Code Enforcement survey circulated to all organizations oa the 
Department's Neighborhood Organization list About sixty organizations responded in writing. 

In response to this survey, from discussions with Department staff, the City Attorney's office, tho 
Department of Building Inspection and other affected agencies, we have developed the following 
work Enforcement Priorities: 

1 . Responding to public complaints based upon the 1 992 Priorities 

2. Commission and Zoning Administrator-imposed conditions on projects. 

3. Quadrant Specific Issues 
NE- Illegal Signs 

SB- Non-permitted commercial uses in residential zones 
NW- Non-permitted commercial uses in residential zones 
SW* Non-permitted commercial uses in residential zones 



FEB 82 '80 11:17 STftNTON JONES 415 3991964 



» 



Attachment Hi 
^ a ge 2 of"! 



Id analyzing the Enforcement Survey findings, Jf became apparent thai three of the four 
quadrant* ' primary concerns were non-permitted commercial uses in residential zones. 

In 1992, the Department set priorities by a matrix of Issues correlated to the Impact of the 
violation, as follow*: 

Violation Issue Impact 

1 . Life Threatening A. Significant (Nos. affected or impact) 

2. Loss of Housing B. Moderate Impact 

3. Neigh LivabUity Issues C. Low Impact 

4. Loss of Jobs/Business 

5. Plan/Design Non-Compliance 

The Enforcement Survey indicated that neighborhood groups want a highor priority on 
Plan/Design non-compliance and neighborhood li\ ability, in that order. The Department still 
believes that loss of bousing is a critical issue in today's tight housing market. Wc ore therefore 
proposing the following priority system. 

Violation Issue (1992 Rank) Impact 

1 . Life Threatening ( I ) A, Significant (Nos. affected or impact) 

2. Loss of Housing (2) B. Moderate Impact 

3. Plan/Design Non-Compliance (5) C. Low Impact 

4. Neigh Uvability Issues (3) 

5. Loss of Jobs/Business (4) 

Next Steps 

The Department will revise the Enforcement Program, as appropriate, after receiving comments 
at the December 16. 1999 hearing. We will continue to develop the procedures, and implement 
the necessary staff training to assure the program's success. It must be recognized that 
implementing the Enforcement Program will take considerable staff effort and a balancing of 
Department's and the Commission's enforcement and other priorities. 



NtfAC&NfOAC&fNFPIIOT.WrD 



INTRODUCTION FORM 

By a member of the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor 



I hereby submit the following item for introduction: 



RECEIVED 

JUL 2 6 1999 



BY:. 



T me Stamp or 
Meeting Date 



1 . For reference to Committee: 

An ordinance, resolution, motion, or charter amendment. 

2. Request for next printed agenda without reference to Committee 



X 3. Request for Committee hearing on a subject matter. 

4. Request for letter beginning "Supervisor inquires. 

_ 5. City Attorney request. 

_ 6. Call file from Committee. 

7. Budget Analyst request (by motion). 

8. Legislative Analyst request. 



[Note: For the Imperative Agenda (a resolution not on the printed agenda, use a different form.) 

Sponsor(s): Supervisor Leland Yee 

SUBJECT: Hearing regarding the Planning Department's Enforcement Program 

The text is listed below or attached: 

A hearing regarding the Planning Department's Enforcement Program, including how the 
enforcement program will be enhanced to vigorously enforce the Planning Code and 
terms of Conditional Use Authorizations, and how the positions that were approved in the 
FY 1999-2000 budget will be used to expand enforcement. 



Signature of Sponsoring Supervisor 




Common/Shared I emplates/Introduction Form 



Revised 5 -I 99 



/hcj , fy. per me 



Bayview SECF 
1 800 Oakdale 


I Mondays 9:30 - 1 1 : 00 am 
| Wednesdays 5:30-7:30 pm 


1 


i frfrnjL faierYi^J 




Bernal Heights Library 
500 Cortland 


| Tuesdays 10:00 am - 12 00 pm 
| Wednesdays 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. 


\^' eT *4- 








Chinatown Library 
1135 Powell 


I Mondays 2:00 -5:00 pm 
1 Wednesdays 5:30 - 7:30 pm 







Excelsior Library 
4440 Mission St 



Mondays I 00 -3:00 pm. 



Mission Playground 
1 9"' & Valencia 



\VeJnesJa\s 5:30- 7:30 p.m. 



C7/7 Ck^irty 



IhujLJh. 



w 



Presidio Library 
3150 Sacramento 



Tuesdays 10:00 am - 12:00 pm 
Wednesdays 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. 



CL <*-<l B! 3E» 



^ 



Richmond, Anza Library 
550 37 th Ave 



Mondays 12:00 -2:00 pm 
Wednesdays 5:30-7:30 pm 



Sunset; Taraval PD 
2345 24 th Ave 


Mondays 10 00 am - 12:00 pm 
Wednesdays 5:30 - 7:30 pm 











-jmM, Ji-v\ ulktu-lurtS OFFICE 



4 1 5 554 6937 



CUSTOMER SERVICE ACTION HAN 

IMPROVING THtfflJAtlTY i 

OFLKIfHANfRANCKCO ._ -.--_-': ~ 

Nf IGHBORHOOD BY NHGHBGRHGOD 



_ Bayview Hunter's Point - 
_ : _ Bernal Heights and Glen Pork 
-Castro ~ ;. ",r P _.".' .::---' 
^Chinatown 
I .."' Downtown^ 'II "' ..I. .1 ~ : ~ I 

f "j Forest Hilj Extension 1 

_ [Marina, Cow Hollow and Pacific Heights 
— ^Mission — -~ - - - -I 

|3 Mission Bay andPotrero Hill 

|..l| Richmond, Seacliffand Lake ------ -■" 

r ~i Stonestown i_ 

-. Sunset^Goideir Gate Heights, FofesTHiB and Parbide 
1-J Twin Peaks- - — ~— — — — "— — ■ £ •'>' 



September T996 to June 1 999 



^ 









*W .^^•••"jirAji' 



«. - .j£ 



tfg 



' * *i 


- **; 


►'^^J^^ B58*^R fr ^ WhHsb^' 


-»•' ^ vfc i; ' 

'-£■'*• * 






V 4 




K3 SLb^* '" XM 


"3 







1999-2000 Planning Department Enforcement Work Program 
Status September 29, 1999 



TASK 

1. Hire new staff & make assignments to enforcement 
program- Mid-September 

• assign Planner V as TAC/Enforcement Manager and 
liaison to Board of Appeals coordinator 

• assign Planner IV as TAC enforcement coordinator 

• assign planner as enforcement tech. spec, on each 
team 

2. Staff review of existing Citywide Enforcement Priorities - 
Mid-September 

review 1992 Enforcement Program Priorities 
review General Plan policies re. Enforcement 

• review enforcement priorities/programs of DBI and 
the City Attorney 

3. Staff review of Enforcement Issues by neighborhood 
Mid-October 

• review 1998 Neighborhood Planning Issues Survey 
review input from team leaders on key enforcement 
issues in each quadrant 

4. Design & Development of Neighborhood by 
Neighborhood Program, including City Attorney & other 
City agency Participation - End October 

draft enforcement survey to send to Neighborhood 

Planning Issues Survey respondents 

review responses from enforcement survey and rank 

key enforcement issues by quadrant 

neighborhood outreach by staff and Meetings in 

neighborhood 

staff development of quadrant-specific enforcement 

programs, with input from C.A.'s office & DBI 

Draft any necessary legislation to implement 

enforcement program 

5. Review and Comment by City-wide Neighborhood/ 
Merchant Groups - November Meetings 

• circulate enforcement program outline to 
neighborhood/merchant groups for review - follow-up 
meetings 

6. Planning Commission Hearing on the Program Mid-Nov 

• staff preparation of Commission presentation 

7. Refinement of Program based on Public Testimony 
End November 

Initiate Preservation Legislation 



STATUS (Italics = Completion) 



Larry Badiner -Aug 19 

Lois Scott/May Fung - Sept. 21 
Selected Sept. 7 



Sept. 9 

End September 

Initiated Sept. 24 



Prelim. Review Sept 
Mid September 



Sept. 24, mail end Sept. 
Mid October 
October 
End October 
End October 

November 

November 17 
End November 



8. Updates on progress at the Planning Commission 



Perodically 



RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BUDGET ANALYST FOR 

AMENDMENT OF BUDGET ITEMS 

1999-00 



Department. City Planning 



(continued) 



The City Planning Department's proposed new positions are as follows: 



Name 


Classification 


No. of 
Positions 


Salary at 
Top Step 


Annualized 

No. of 

Positions 


Total Salaries 


Planner III 


5291 


1.5 


-^65,552 


2.0 


$131,104 


Senior Clerk Typist 


1426 


1.0 


40,321 


1.0 


40,321 


Planner I 


5277 


1.0 


45,483 


1.0 


45,483 


Planner II 


5278 


3.0 


55,282 


3.0 


165,846 


Planner IE 


5291 


5.0 


65,552 


5.0 


327,762 


Planner rv 


5294 


2.0 


77,787 


2.0 


155,574 


Planner V 


5297 


1.0 


92,224 


1.0 


92,224 






14.5 




15.0 


$958,314 



In addition to the two General Fund Planner positions to oversee the development of the area 
plans and neighborhood profiles for the Central Waterfront and Upper Market Street areas, the 
Department has requested 13 new positions including 12 Planner positions that would be funded by 
Planning Commission fee revenues for processing various Planning Department approval requirements 
and Commission cases, and would be supported by Planning Department fee revenues. The Budget 
Analyst is recommending approval of those 13 new position requests supported by fee revenues. 



Department Revenue 

Department revenues have increased by $1,819,275 or 25 percent and General Fund support has 
increased by $1,762,01 1 or 88.9 percent, from $1,982,217 in FY 1998-99 to $3,744,228 in FY 1999-00. 



Board of Supervisors - Budget Analyst 



File No. 991307 Committee Item No. 

Board Item No. 



COMMITTEE/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST* 
Committee Finance and Labor Date 2/9/00 
Board of Supervisors Meeting Date 

Cmte Board 

□ □ Motion 
gf □ Resolution 
|~J □ Ordinance 

□ □ Legislative Digest 

r] □ Budget Analyst Report 

□ □ Legislative Analyst Report 

□ Department/Agency Cover Letter and/or Report 

□ □ Public Correspondence 

|~J □ Exceeds 20 pages; see file to review 

□ □ Sent to Board in advance of agenda preparation; 

available for review at reception desk, City Hall, Room 244 

□ □ Other 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

(Use back side if additional space is needed) 

Late Agenda Items (documents received too late for distribution to the 
Committee Members) 



□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


D 


□ 


□ 



Completed by: Gail Johnson Date 2/7/00 

Date 



*This list reflects the explanatory documents provided 



Packet Contents Checklist 2/3/00 



Cmte Board 

□ D _ 

□ □ — 

□ □ _ 

□ D _ 

□ □ — 

□ □ — 

□ □ — 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

D □ 

□ D 

□ D 

□ □ 

□ □ 

an 

an 

an 

an 

an 

an 

an 

an 

□ □ 

□ a 

an 

an 

an 

□ □ 

□ □ 

a a 

an 

an 

□ □ 

□ □ 



Packet Contents Checklist 



FILE NO 991307 RESOLUTION NO. 



1 | ADOPTING FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT 

2 THE JOBS-HOUSING LINKAGE ORDINANCE WILL HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT 

3 IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND ADOPTING AND INCORPORATING 

4 FINDINGS OF FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. 

5 li WHEREAS, On April 3, 1999, amended April 26,1999, the Planning 

6 Department issued for public review, a preliminary negative 

7 declaration, [Case #1999. 178E] for the Jobs-Housing Linkage 

8 Ordinance and 

9 WHEREAS, On April 27, 1999, the negative declaration was 
10 finalized by the Planning Department; and 

1 WHEREAS, This Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing 

|2 on the matter of adoption of the final negative declaration prior 

3 to consideration of the Jobs-Housing Linkage Ordinance; now, 

4 therefore, be it 

5 RESOLVED, That this Board of Supervisors has considered and 

6 reviewed the final negative declaration and adopts said final 

7 negative declaration; and be it 

8 FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board of Supervisors hereby finds 

9 and determines that there is no substantial evidence that the 

Jobs-Housing Linkage Ordinance will have a significant effect on 

1 the environment and that the negative declaration reflects the 

2 lead agency's independent judgment and analysis; and be it 

3 FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Board of Supervisors adopts and 

4 incorporates herein by reference thereto the findings of the 

5 final negative declaration, [Case #1999. 178E] , issued by the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



Planning Department, a copy of which is on file with the Clerk 
of the Board of Supervisors. 



RECOMMENDED : 
PLANNING COMMISSION 



Gerald G. Green 
Director of Planning 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



File No. 991304 Committee Item No. 3_ 

Board Item No. 



COMMITTEE/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST* 
Committee Finance and Labor Date 2/9/00 
Board of Supervisors Meeting Date 



Cmte Board 

□ □ Motion 

□ □ Resolution 
ffl □ Ordinance 

L) □ Legislative Digest 

SI □ Budget Analyst Report 

U D Legislative Analyst Report 

M □ Department/Agency Cover Letter and/or Report 

□ Public Correspondence 

□ Exceeds 20 pages; see file to review 

□ □ Sent to Board in advance of agenda preparation; 

available for review at reception desk, City Hall, Room 244 

□ □ Other 

^ Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

(Use back side if additional space is needed) 

Late Agenda Items (documents received too late for distribution to the 
Committee Members) 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 



Completed by: Gail Johnson Date 2/7/00 

Date 



*This list reflects the explanatory documents provided 



Packet Contents Checklist 



Cmte Board 

□ □ — 

□ □ — 

□ D _ 

□ D _ 

□ D _ 

□ □ _ 

□ □ — 

an 

□ □ 

an 

an 

an 

an 

□ □ 

an 

an — 

an — 

a □ 

an 

an 

an 

an 

□ a 

an 

□ □ 

an 

an 

an 

an 

□ □ 

a a 

an 

an 

an 

an 



Pack^: Contents Checklist 2 3 00 



991304 
FILE NO. * H ORDINANCE NO. 



[Jobs-Housing Linkage Program] 

AMENDING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER II, PART II OF THE SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL 
CODE (PLANNING CODE) BY AMENDING SECTIONS 313, 313.1, 313.2, 313.3, 313.4, 
313.5, 313.6, 313.7, 313.8, 313.9, 313.10, 313.1 1, 313.12, 313.13, AND 313.14, AND BY 
ADDING SECTION 313.15, TO RENAME THE "OFFICE AFFORDABLE HOUSING 
PRODUCTION PROGRAM" AS THE "JOBS-HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAM," TO APPLY 
THE PROGRAM TO ALL NEW AND EXPANDED HOTEL SPACE OF AT LEAST 25,000 
SQUARE FEET, TO ALL NEW AND EXPANDED ENTERTAINMENT SPACE OF AT LEAST 
50,000 SQUARE FEET, AND TO ALL NEW AND EXPANDED RETAIL SPACE OF AT 
LEAST 100,000 SQUARE FEET, AND BY AMENDING SECTION 314.1 OF THE 
CHILDCARE ORDINANCE TO CONFORM TO THE NEW DEFINITION OF "HOTEL." 

Note: Deletions are in ((double parentheses)); additions are underlined . 

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco: 

Section 1. Chapter II, Article III of the San Francisco Planning Code is hereby 
amended by amending Sections 313, 313.1, 313.2, 313.3, 313.4, 313.5, 313.6, 313.7, 313.8, 
313.9, 313.10, 313.11, 313.12, 313.13, and 313.14 to read as follows: 

SEC. 313. HOUSING REQUIREMENTS FOR ((OFFICE)) LARGE-SCALE 
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. Sections 313.1 through ((313.14)) 313.15 set 
forth the requirements and procedures for the ((Office Affordable Housing Production 
Program)) Jobs-Housing Linkage Program . 

SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 1 

5/26/99 



1 SEC. 313.1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall govern interpretation of tr 

2 ordinance: 

3 (1) "Affordable housing project" shall mean a housing project containing units 

4 constructed to satisfy the requirements of Sections 313.5 or 313.7 of this ordinance or 

5 receiving funds from the Citvwide Affordable Housing Fund under Section 313.12. 

6 (2) "Affordable to a household" shall mean a purchase price that a household can 

7 afford to pay based on an annual payment for all housing costs of 33 percent of the combine< 

8 household annual net income, a 10 percent down payment, and available financing, or a rent 

9 that a household can afford to pay based on an annual payment for all housing costs ot 30 

1 percent of the combined annual net income. 

1 1 (3) "Affordable to qualifying households" shall mean: 

1 2 (A) With respect to owned units, the average purchase pnce on the initial sale of all 

13 affordable owned units in an affordable housing project shall not exceed the allowable 

14 average purchase price. Each unit shall be sold: 

1 5 (i) Only to households with an annual net income equal to or less than that of a 

16 household of moderate income; and 

17 (ii) ((On the initial sale, a)) At or below the maximum purchase price((; and)). 

18 (((iii) On subsequent sales, at or below the prices to be determined by the Director in 

19 rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 313.5(f) such that the units are 

20 affordable to qualifying households.)) 

21 (B) With respect to rental units in an affordable housing project, the average annual 

22 rent shall not exceed the allowable average annual rent. Each unit shall be rented: 

23 (i) Only to households with an annual net income equal to or less than that of a 

24 household of lower income; 

25 (ii) At or less than the maximum annual rent. i\ 

SUPERVISOR 



board of supervisors Page c 

5/26/9S 



(4) "Allowable average purchase price" shall mean: 

(A) For all affordable one-bedroom units in a housing project, a price affordable to a 
two-person household of median income as set forth in Title 25 of the California Code of 
Regulations Section 6932 ("Section 6932") on January 1st of that year; 

(B) For all affordable two-bedroom units in a housing project, a price affordable to a 
three ((two))-person household of median income as set forth in Section 6932 on January 1st 
of that year; 

(C) For all affordable three-bedroom units in a housing project, a price affordable to 
a four-person household of median income as set forth in Section 6932 on January 1st of that 
year; 

(D) For all affordable four-bedroom units in a housing project, a price affordable to a 
five-person household of median income as set forth in Section 6932 on January 1st of that 
year. 

(5) "Allowable average annual rent" shall mean: 

(A) For all affordable one-bedroom units in a housing project, 18 percent of the 
median income for a household of two persons as set forth in Section 6932 on January 1st of 
that year; 

(B) For all affordable two-bedroom units in a housing project, 18 percent of the 
median income for a household of three persons as set forth in Section 6932 on January 1st 
of that year; 

(C) For all affordable three-bedroom units in a housing project, 18 percent of the 
median income for a household of four persons as set forth in Section 6932 on January 1st of 
that year; 



SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 3 

5/26/99 



S 25 



1 (D) For all affordable four-bedroom units in a housing project, 18 percent of the 

2 median income for a household of five persons as set forth in Section 6932 on January 1st o 

3 that year. 

4 (6) "Annual net income" shall mean net income as defined in Title 25 of the 

5 California Code of Regulations Section 6916. 

6 (7) "Average annual rent" shall mean the total annual rent for the calendar year 

7 charged by a housing project for all affordable rental units in the prcject of an equal number o 

8 bedrooms divided by the total number of affordable units in the project with that number of 

9 bedrooms. 

10 (8) "Average purchase price" shall mean the purchase price for all affordable ownec 

1 1 units in an affordable housing project of an equal number of bedrooms divided by the total 

1 2 number of affordable units in the project with that number of bedrooms. 

( 

13 (9) "City" shall mean the City and County of San Francisco. 

14 (((9))) (10) "Community apartment" shall be as defined in San Francisco Subdivision 

15 Code Section 1308(b). 

16 (((10))) (11) "Condominium" shall be as defined in California Civil Code Section 783. 

17 (12) "Director of Building Inspection" shall mean the Director of the Department of 

18 Building Inspection or his or her designee, including other City agencies or departments. 

19 (((11 ))) (13J "Director of Planning " shall mean the Director of ((City)) the Planning 

20 Department or his or her designee, including the Mayor's Office of Housing and other City 

21 agencies or departments. 

22 (14) "Entertainment development project" shall mean any new construction, addition, 

23 extension, conversion, or enlargement, or combination thereof, of an existing structure which 

24 includes any gross square feet of entertainment use. 

SUPERVISOR 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 4 

5/2699 



(1 5) "Entertainment use" shall mean space within a structure or portion thereof 
intended or primarily suitable for the operation of a nighttime entertainment use as defined in 
San Francisco Planning Code Section 102.17. a movie theater use as defined in San 
Francisco Planning Code Sections 790.64 and 890.64. an adult theater use as defined in San 
Francisco Police Code Section 191. any other entertainment use as defined in San Francisco 
Planning Code Sections 790.38 and 890.37. and, notwithstanding San Francisco Planning 
Code Section 790.38. an amusemenf game r"-cade (mechanical amusement devices) use as 
defined in Planning Code Sections 790.4 and 890.4. Under this ordinance, "entertainment 
use" shall include all office and other uses accessory to the entertainment use, but excluding 
retail uses and office uses not accessory to the entertainment use. 

(((12))) (16) "First certificate of occupancy" shall mean either a temporary certificate of 
occupancy or a Certificate of Final Completion and Occupancy as defined in San Francisco 
Building Code Section 109, whichever is issued first. 

(17) "Hotel development project" shall mean any new construction, addition, 
extension, conversion, or enlargement, or combination thereof, of an existing structure which 
includes any gross square feet of hotel use. 

(18) "Hotel use" shall mean space within a structure or portion thereof intended or 
primarily suitable for rooms, or suites of two or more rooms, each of which may or may not 
feature a bathroom and cooking facility or kitchenette and is designed to be occupied by a 
visitor or visitors to the City who pays for accommodations on a daily or weekly basis but who 
do not remain for more than 31 consecutive days. Under this ordinance, "hotel use" shall 
include all office and other uses accessory to the renting of guest rooms, but excluding retail 
uses and office uses not accessory to the hotel use. 

(((13))) ( 19) "Household" shall mean any person or persons who reside or intend to 
reside in the same housing unit. 

SUPERVISOR 



board of supervisors Page 5 

5/26/99 



>ne 



1 ((C 4 ))) (20) "Household of lower income" shall mean a household composed of o 

2 or more persons with a combined annual net income for all adult members which does not 

3 exceed the qualifying limit for a lower-income family of a size equivalent to the number of 

4 persons residing in such household, as set forth for the County of San Francisco in Title 25 ol 

5 the California Code of Regulations Section 6932. 

6 (((15))) (21) "Household of median income" shall mean a household composed of one 

7 or more persons with a combined annual net income for all adult members which does not 

8 exceed the qualifying limit for a median-income family of a size equivalent to the number of 

9 persons residing in such household, as set forth for the County of San Francisco in Title 25 of 

10 the California Code of Regulations Section 6932. 

1 1 (((16))) (22) "Household of moderate income" shall mean a household composed of 

12 one or more persons with a combined annual net income for all adult members which does 

1 3 not exceed the qualifying limit for a moderate-income family of a size equivalent to the number 

14 of persons residing in such household, as set forth for the County of San Francisco in Title 25 

1 5 of the California Code of Regulations Section 6932. 

16 (((17))) (23) "Housing developer" shall mean any business entity building housing 

17 units which receives a payment from a sponsor for use in the construction of the housing 

18 units. A housing developer may be (a) the same business entity as the sponsor, (b) an entity 

19 in which the sponsor is a partner, joint venturor. or stockholder, or (c) an entity in which the 

20 sponsor has no control or ownership. 

21 (((18))) (24) "Housing unit" or "unit" shall mean a dwelling unit as defined in San 

22 Francisco Housing Code Section 401 . 

23 (((19))) {25} "Interim Guidelines" shall mean the Office Housing Production Program 

24 Interim Guidelines adopted by the City Planning Commission on January 26, 1982, as 



, 



25 amended. 



SUPERVISOR 



< 



board of supervisors Page 6 

5/26/99 



(((20))) (26) "Maximum annual rent" shall mean the maximum rent that a housing 
developer may charge any tenant occupying an affordable unit for the calendar year. The 
maximum annual rent shall be 30 percent of the annual income for a lower-income household 
as set forth in Section 6932 on January 1st of each year for the following household sizes: 

(A) For all one-bedroom units, for a household of two persons; 

(B) For all two-bedroom units, for a household of three persons; 

(C) For all three-bedroom units, fc a household of four persons; 

(D) For all four-bedroom units, for a household of five persons. 

(((21 ))) (27) "Maximum purchase price" shall mean the maximum purchase price that 
a household of moderate income can afford to pay for an owned unit based on an annual 
payment for all housing costs of 33 percent of the combined household annual net income, a 
10 percent down payment, and available financing, for the following household sizes: 

(A) For all one-bedroom units, for a household of two persons; 

(B) For all two-bedroom units, for a household of three persons; 

(C) For all three-bedroom units, for a household of four persons; 

(D) For all four-bedroom units, for a household of five persons. 

(28) "Net addition of gross square feet of entertainment space" shall mean gross floor 
area as defined in San Francisco Planning Code Section 102.9 to be occupied by, or primarily 
serving, entertainment use, less the gross floor area in any structure demolished or 
rehabilitated as part of the proposed entertainment development project that was used 
primarily and continuously for entertainment, hotel, office, or retail use and was not accessory 
to any use other than entertainment, hotel, office, or retail use for five years prior to Planning 
Commission approval of an entertainment development project subject to this Section, or for 
the life of the structure demolished or rehabilitated, whichever is shorter, so long as such 
space was subject to this ordinance or the Interim Guidelines. 

SUPERVISOR 



board of supervisors Page 7 

5/26/99 



I 

1 (29) "Net addition of gross square feet of hotel space" shall mean gross floor area g 

2 defined in San Francisco Planning Code Section 102.9 to be occupied by, or primarily servin 

3 hotel use, less the gross floor area in any structure demolished or rehabilitated as part of the 

4 proposed hotel development project that was used primarily and continuously for 

5 entertainment, hotel, office, or retail use and was not accessory to any use other than 

6 entertainment, hotel, office, or retail use for five years prior to Planning Commission approval 

7 of a hotel development project subject to this Section, or for the life of the structure 

8 demolished or rehabilitated, whichever is shorter, so long as such space was subject to this 

9 ordinance or the Interim Guidelines. 

10 (((22))) (30) "Net addition of gross square feet of office space" shall mean gross floo 

1 1 area as defined in San Francisco Planning Code Section 102.9 to be occupied by. or primaril 

12 serving, office use, less the gross floor area in any structure demolished or rehabilitated as 

13 part of the proposed office development project ((space)) that was used primarily and 

14 continuously for entertainment, hotel, office , or retail use and was not accessory to any use 

1 5 other than entertainment, hotel, office , or retail use for five years prior to Planning 

16 Commission approval of an office development project subject to this Section, or for the life of 

17 the structure demolished or rehabilitated, whichever is shorter. 

18 (31 ) "Net addition of gross sguare feet of retail space" shall mean gross floor area as 

19 defined in San Francisco Planning Code Section 102.9 to be occupied by. or pnmarily serving 

20 retail use, less the gross floor area in any structure demolished or rehabilitated as part of the 

21 proposed retail development project that was used primarily and continuously for 

22 entertainment, hotel, office, or retail use and was not accessory to any use other than 

23 entertainment, hotel, office, or retail use for five years prior to Planning Commission approval 

24 of a retail development project subject to this Section, or for the life of the structure 

25 demolished or rehabilitated, whichever is shorter. 



y 



SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 8 

5/26/99 



(((23))) (32) "Office development project" shall mean any new construction, addition, 
extension, conversion, or enlargement, or combination thereof, of an existing structure which 
includes any gross square feet of office ((space)) use . 

(((24))) (33) "Office use" shall mean space within a structure or portion thereof 
intended or primarily suitable for occupancy by persons or entities which perform, provide for 
their own benefit, or provide to others at that location services including, but not limited to, the 
following: ((P))p_rofessional, banking^,)); ins"rance((,)); management^,)); consulting((,)); 
technical^,)), sales((,)); and design; ((or)) and the office functions of manufacturing and 
warehousing businesses((, but excluding)).. Under this ordinance, "office use" shall exclude: 
retail uses; repair; any business characterized by the physical transfer of tangible goods to 
customers on the premises; wholesale shipping, receiving and storage; and design 
showcases or any other space intended and primarily suitable for display of goods. Under 
((T))this ((definition)) ordinance, "office use" shall include all uses encompassed within the 
meaning of San Francisco Planning Code Section 219. 

(((25))) (34) "Ordinance" shall mean San Francisco Planning Code Sections 313.1 
through 313.14. 

(((26))) (35) "Owned unit" shall mean a unit affordable to qualifying households which 
is a condominium, stock cooperative, community apartment, or detached single-family home. 
The owner or owners of an owned unit must occupy the unit as their primary residence. 

(((27)) (36) "Owner" shall mean the record owner of the fee or a vendee in 
possession. 

(((28))) (37J "Rent" or "rental" shall mean the total charges for rent, utilities, and 
related housing services to each household occupying an affordable unit. 

(((29))) (38) "Rental unit" shall mean a unit affordable to qualifying households which 
is not a condominium, stock cooperative, or community apartment. 

SUPERVISOR 



board of supervisors Page 9 

5/26/99 






1 (39) "Retail development project" shall mean any new construction, addition. 

2 extension, conversion, or enlargement, or combination thereof, of an existing structure which 

3 includes any gross sguare feet of retail use. 

4 (((30))) (40) "Retail use" shall mean space within any structure or portion thereof 

5 intended or primarily suitable for occupancy by persons or entities which supply commodities 

6 to customers on the premises including, but not limited to, stores, shops, restaurants, bars, 

7 eating and drinking businesses, and The uses defined in San Francicco Planning Code 

8 Sections 218 and 220 through 225, and also including all space accessory to such retail use 

9 (((31 ))) [4_U "Section 6932" shall mean Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code . I 

10 of Regulations as such section applies to the County of San Francisco 

1 1 (((32))) (42) "Sponsor" shall mean an applicant seeking approval for construction of 

12 a((n office)) development project subject to this Section, such applicants' successors and j 

13 assigns, and/or any entity which controls or is under common control with such applicant. 

14 (((33))) (43) "Stock cooperative" shall be as defined in California Business and 

1 5 Professions Code Section 1 1 003.2. 

16 (((34) "Superintendent" shall mean the Superintendent, Bureau of Building 

17 Inspection.)) 
18 

19 SEC. 313.2. FINDINGS. The Board hereby finds and declares as follows((:)) i Large- 

20 scale entertainment, hotel, office (including research and development), and retail 

21 developments in the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter "City") have attracted and 

22 continue to attract additional employees to the City, and there is a causal connection between 

23 such developments and the need for additional housing in the City, particularly housing 

24 affordable to households of lower and moderate income. ((Office)) Such commercial uses in 

25 the City ((are benefitted by)) benefit from the availability of housing close by for ((persons 

SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 10 

5/26/99 



employed in such offices close to their place of employment)) their employees . However, the 
supply of housing units in the City has not kept pace with the demand for housing created by 
these new employees. Due to this shortage of housing, employers will have difficulty in 
securing a labor force, and employees, unable to find decent and affordable housing, will be 
forced to commute long distances, having a negative impact on quality of life, limited energy 
resources, air quality, social equity, and already overcrowded highways and public transport. 

There is a low vacancy rate foT hous ; ng affordable to persons of lower and moderate 
income. In part, this low vacancy rate is due to factors unrelated to large -scale commercial 
((office)) development, such as high interest rates, high land costs in the City, immigration 
from abroad, demographic changes such as the reduction in the number of persons per 
household, and personal, subjective choices by households that San Francisco is a desirable 
place to live. This low vacancy rate is also due in part to large -scale (( office)) commercial 
developments which have attracted and will continue to attract additional employees and 
residents to the City. Consequently, some of the employees attracted to these ((large office)) 
developments are competing with present residents for scarce, vacant affordable housing 
units in the City. Competition for housing generates the greatest pressure on the supply of 
housing affordable to households of lower and moderate income. In San Francisco, office or 
retail uses of land generally yield higher income to the owner than housing. Because of these 
market forces, the supply of these affordable housing units will not be expanded. 
Furthermore, Federal and State housing finance and subsidy programs are not sufficient by 
themselves to satisfy the lower and moderate income housing requirements of the City. 

As demonstrated in the "((Analysis of the OAHPP Formula prepared by the Department 
of City Planning in November 1994)) Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis" prepared by Kevser 
Marston Associates, Inc. in June 1997 ." construction of new housing units in the City ((has)) 
decreased to a low of ((500)) 288 units in 1993 compared to an average annual production of 

SUPERVISOR 



board of supervisors Page 1 1 

5/26/99 



25 



, 



i 



1 ((1 ,600)) 1.330 units ((over the previous ten)) during the years 1980 through 1995 . Overall 

2 housing production in the City should average ((2,300)) approximately 2.200 units a year to 

3 keep up with the City's share of regional housing demand. 

4 There is a continuing shortage of low- and moderate-income housing in San Francisco. , 

5 Affordable housing production in the City ((has)) averaged approximately ((350)) 340 units per i 

6 year during the ((past 10)) years 1980 through 1995 . However, the demand for new 

7 affordable housing ((is)) will be approximately 1,300 units per year for the years 2000 through 

8 2015. (( The City needs 64,000 new housing units to relieve the City's existing housing 

9 shortage of units affordable to low-income households, to reduce overcrowding and unfair 

10 costs, and to accommodate persons with special housing needs.)) 

1 1 Objective 1 . Policy 7 of t ((T))he Residence Element of the San Francisco Master Plan 

12 calls for the provision of additional housing to accommodate the demands of new residents 

13 attracted ((here)) to the City by expanding employment opportunity made available by))ies 

14 caused by the growth of ((office use)) large-scale commercial activities in the City. ((The City 

15 should impose requirements on developers of office projects designed to mitigate the adverse l 

16 effects of the expanded employment facilitated by such projects)) Such development projects 

17 should assist in meeting the City's housing needs by contributing to the provision of housing . 

18 ((To that end, the City Planning Commission is authorized affirmatively to promote the policies 

19 of the Residence Element of the San Francisco Master Plan through the imposition of special 

20 housing development requirements.)) 

21 It is desirable to impose the cost of the increased burden of providing housing 

22 necessitated by ((such office)) large-scale commercial development projects directly upon the 

23 sponsors of ((new)) the development projects ((generating the need through a requirement 

24 that the)) by requiring that the project sponsors construct housing or pay a fee to the City to 



SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 12 

5/26/99 



• 






subsidize housing development as a condition of the privilege of development and to assist 
the community in solving those of its housing problems generated by the development. 

The required housing exaction shall be based upon formula((e))s derived in the report 
entitled "((The Economic Basis for an Office Housing Production Program in San Francisco," 
prepared by Recht, Hausrath & Associates, dated July 19, 1984)) Jobs Housing Nexus 
Analysis" prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.. dated June, 1997 . ((The housing 
exaction shall also be based on the "Analyst of the OAHPP Formula" prepared by the 
Department of City Planning dated November 1994, which confirms the present validity of the 
conclusions reached in the Recht Hausrath report.)) The (("Analysis of the OAHPP Formula" 
also)) "Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis" demonstrates the validity of (((1))) the nexus between 
new^ large-scale entertainment, hotel, office, and retail development and the increased 
demand for housing in the City, and (((2))) the numerical relationship between ((new office)) 
such development projects and the formulas for provision of housing set forth in this 
ordinance. 

Because the shortage of affordable housing created by ((office)) large-scale 
commercial development in the City can be expected to continue for many years, it is 
necessary to maintain the affordability of the housing units constructed by ((office)) 
developers of such projects under this program. In order to maintain the long-term 
affordability of such housing, the City is authorized to enforce affordability requirements 
through mechanisms such as shared appreciation mortgages, deed restrictions, enforcement 
instruments, and rights of first refusal exercisable by the City at the time of resale of housing 
units built under the program. 

Objective 8, Policy 2 of the Residence Element of the San Francisco Master Plan 
encourages the Planning Commission to periodically reassess reguirements placed on large- 
scale commercial development under the Office Affordable Housing Production Program 

SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 1 3 

5/26/99 



S 25 



1 ("OAHPP"). predecessor to the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program. To that end, within 18 

2 months following the effective date of this ordinance, the Director of Planning shall report to 

3 the Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the Mayor on the current supply and demand 



. 



4 of affordable housing in the City, the status of compliance with this ordinance, and the efficacy 

5 of this ordinance in mitigating the City's shortage of affordable housing available to employees 

6 working in development projects subject to this ordinance. Thereafter, if in the discretion of 

7 the Director of Planning there has been a substantial change in the San Francisco and/or 

8 regional economies since the effective date of this ordinance, the Director of Planning may 

9 recommend to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the Mayor that this ordinance 

10 be amended or rescinded to alleviate any undue burden on commercial development in the 

11 City that the ordinance may impose. 
r 12 

13 SEC. 313.3. APPLICATION, (a) In all cases where an environmental evaluation 

14 application for the development project is filed on or after January 1 . 1 999. (( T))this ordinance 

15 shall apply to: 

16 (1 ) any entertainment development project proposing the net addition of 50.000 or 

17 more sguare feet of entertainment space; 

18 (2) any hotel development project proposing the net addition of 25.000 or more 

1. ^^tof^ne: j, 

20 (3) any office development project((s)) proposing the net addition of 25.000 or more | 

21 gross square feet of office space; and 

22 (4) any retail development project proposing the net addition of 100.000 or more 

23 square feet of retail space. 

24 (b) This ordinance shall not apply to: 



I: 



SUPERVISOR 

boaro of supervisors Page 14 

5/26/99 



(1 ) Any development project other than a((n office)) development project described 
in subsection fa) of this Section , including ((that)) those , portions of ((an office)) a development 
project consisting of ((a retail use)) the net addition of gross square feet of any type of space 
not described in subsection (a) of this Section ; 

(2) ((That)) Those portions of a((n office)) development project described in 
subsection (a) of this Section located on property owned by the United States or any of its 
agencies or leased by the United Stales or any of its agencies for a poriod in excess of 50 
years, with the exception of such property not used exclusively for a governmental purpose; 

(3) ((That)) Those portions of a((n office)) development project described in 
subsection (a) of this Section located on property owned by the State of California or any of its 
agencies, with the exception of such property not used exclusively for a governmental or 
educational purpose; .i 

(4) ((That)) Those portions of a((n office)) development project described in 
subsection (a) of this Section located on property under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco 
Redevelopment Agency or the Port of San Francisco where the application of this ordinance 
is prohibited by California or local law; 

(5) Any office development project approved by the Planning Commission prior to 
August 18, 1985 that was not subject to the Interim Guidelines; or 

(6) Any office development project approved by the Planning Commission prior to 
August 18, 1985 that was subject to the Interim Guidelines. If the action of the Planning 
Commission affecting such office development project is thereafter modified, superseded, 
vacated, or reversed by the Board of ((Permit)) Appeals, the Board of Supervisors, or by court 
action in a manner affecting the amount of housing required under the Interim Guidelines, the 
permit application on remand to the Planning Commission shall remain subject to the Interim 
Guidelines. £ 

SUPERVISOR 



board OF supervisors Page 1 5 

5/26/99 



1 1 

1 (7) Any major phase or development proiect in Mission Bay North or South to the 

2 extent application of this ordinance would be inconsistent with the Mission Bay North 

3 Redevelopment Plan and Interagency Cooperation Agreement or the Mission Bay South 

4 Redevelopment Plan and Interagency Cooperation Agreement, as applicable. 
5 

6 SEC. 313.4. IMPOSITION OF HOUSING REQUIREMENT, (a) The ((City)) Planning 

7 Department or the ((City)) Planning Commission shall impose a condition((s)) on the approval 

8 of an application^)) for ((office)) a development project((s covered by)) subject to this 

9 ordinance in order to mitigate the impact on the availability of housing which will be caused by 

10 the employment facilitated by ((the proposed office development)) that project. The 

1 1 condition((s)) shall require that the applicant pay or contribute land to a housing developer to 
A r 12 construct housing or pay an in-lieu fee to the City Controller which shall thereafter be used 

1 3 exclusively for the development of housing affordable to households of lower or moderate 

14 income. 

1 5 (b) Prior to either the Department's or the Commission's approval of a building or 

16 site permit for a((n office)) development project subject to this ordinance, the Department shall 

17 issue a notice complying with Planning Code Section 306.3 setting forth its initial 

18 determination of the net addition of gross square feet of ((office space)) each type of space 

1 9 subject to this ordinance. 

20 (c) Any person may appeal the initial determination by delivering an appeal in 

21 writing to the Department within 1 5 days of such notice. If the initial determination is not 

22 appealed within the time allotted, the initial determination shall become a final determination. 

23 If the initial determination is appealed, the Commission shall schedule a public heanng prior to 

24 the approval of the development project by the Department or the Commission to determine 
^S 25 the net addition of gross square feet of ((office space)) each type of space subject to this 



i 



, 



' 



SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 16 

5/26/99 



ordinance. The public hearing may be scheduled separately or simultaneously with a hearing 
under ((City)) Planning Code Sections 306.2, 309(h), 314.5, or a Discretionary Review 
hearing under San Francisco Municipal Code Part III, Section 26. The Commission shall 
make a final determination of the net addition of gross square feet of each type of space 
subject to this ordinance at the hearing. 

(d) The final determination of the net addition of gross square feet of ((office space)) 
each type of space subject to this ordinance shall be set forth in the conditions of approval of 
any building or site permit application approved by the Department or the Commission. The 
Director of Planning shall notify the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection that a((n 
office)) development project is subject to this ordinance at the time the Department or the 
Commission approves the building or site permit for the ((office)) development project. 

(e) In the event that the Department or the Commission takes action affecting any 
((office)) development project subject to this ordinance and such action is thereafter modified, 
superseded, vacated, or reversed by the Board of ((Permit)) Appeals, the Board of 
Supervisors, or by court action, the permit application for such ((office)) development project 
shall be remanded to the Commission to determine whether the proposed project has been 
changed in a manner which affects the calculation of the amount of housing required under 
this ordinance and, if so, the Commission shall revise the housing requirement imposed on 
the permit application in compliance with this ordinance within 60 days of such remand and 
notify the sponsor in writing of such revision or that a revision is not required. 

(f) The sponsor shall supply all information to the Department and the Commission 
necessary to make a determination as to the applicability of this ordinance and the number of 
gross square feet of ((office space)) each type of space subject to this ordinance. 

(g) The sponsor o((r))f any ((office)) development project subject to this ordinance 
shall have the option of: 

SUPERVISOR 



board of supervisors Page 1 7 

5/26/99 






e 



1 (1 ) Contributing a sum or land of value equivalent ((equal)) to or greater than the ir 

2 lieu fee according to the formulas set forth in Section 313.6 to one or more housing 

3 developers who will use the funds or land to construct housing units pursuant to Section 313. 

4 for each type of space subject to this ordinance ; or 

5 (2) Paying an in-lieu fee to the Controller according to the formula set forth in 

6 Section 313.6 for each type of space subject to this ordinance ; or 

7 (3) Combining the above options pursuant to Section 313.7 for each type of space 

8 subject to this ordinance . 
9 

10 SEC. 313.5. COMPLIANCE THROUGH PAYMENT TO HOUSING DEVELOPER. 

1 1 (a) If the sponsor elects to pay a sum or contribute land of value equivalent equivalent to the 

12 in-lieu fee to one or more housing developers to meet the requirements of this ordinance, the 

1 3 housing developer(((s))) or developers shall be required to construct at least the number of 

14 housing units determined by the following formula s for each type of space proposed as part of 

15 the development project and subject to this ordinance : 

16 

17 Net Addition Gross Sq. Ft. Entertainment Space * .000140 = Housing Units 

18 Net Addition Gross Sq. Ft. Hotel Space * .000110 = Housing Units 

19 Net Addition Gross Sq. Ft. Office Space * .000161 = Housing Units 

20 Net Addition Gross Sq. Ft. Retail Space * .000140 = Housing Units 
21 

22 ((Sixty-two percent of those)) The housing units required to be constructed under the above 

23 formula must be affordable to qualifying households continuously for 50 years. If the sponsor 

24 elects to contribute to more than one distinct housing development under this Section, the 

25 sponsor shall not receive credit for its monetary contribution to any one development in 4 1 






SUPERVISOR 

boaro of supervisors Page 18 

5/26/99 



excess of the amount of the in-lieu fee, as adjusted under Section 313.6, multiplied by the 
number of units in such housing development. 

(b) Within one year of the final determination under Section 31 3.4(c) or a revised 
final determination under Section 313.4(e), or prior to the issuance by the ((Superintendent)) 
Director of Building Inspection of the first site or building permit for a((n office)) development 
project subject to this ordinance, whichever occurs first, the sponsor shall submit to the 
Director of Planning : 

(1 ) A written housing development plan identifying the housing project(((s))) or 
projects to receive funds or land from the sponsor and the proposed mechanism for enforcing 
the requirement that ((62 percent of)) the housing units constructed will be affordable to 
qualifying households for 50 years; and 

(2) A certification that the sponsor has made a binding commitment to contribute an 
amount of money or land of value ((to one or more housing developers))) equivalent to or 
greater than the amount of the in-lieu fee that would otherwise be required under Section 
313.6 to one or more housing developers and that the housing developer(((s))) or developers 
shall use such funds or land to develop the housing subject to this Section. 

If the sponsor fails to comply with these requirements within one year of the final 
determination or revised final determination, it shall be deemed to have elected to pay the in- 
lieu fee under Section 313.6 to comply with this ordinance. In the event that the sponsor fails 
to pay the in-lieu fee within the time required by Section 313.6, the ((Superintendent)) Director 
of Building Inspection shall deny any and all site or building permits or certificates of 
occupancy for the ((office)) development project until the Director of Planning notifies the 
((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection that such payment has been made or land 
contributed, and the Director of Planning shall immediately initiate lien proceedings against 
the sponsor's property pursuant to Section 313.9 to recover the fee. 

SUPERVISOR 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 19 

5/26/99 



1 (c) Within 30 days after the sponsor has submitted a written housing development 

2 project plan to the Director of Planning under ((Part)) subsection (b) of this Section, the 

3 Director of Planning shall notify the sponsor in writing of his or her initial determination as to 

4 whether the plan is in compliance with this Section, publish the initial determination in the ne> 

5 Planning Commission calendar, and cause a public notice to be published in an official 

6 newspaper of general circulation stating that such housing development plan has been 

7 received and stating the Director of Planning 's initial determination. Within 10 days after such 

8 written notification and published notice, the sponsor or any other person may request a 

9 hearing before the Commission to contest such initial determination. If the Director of 

10 Planning receives no request for a hearing within such 10-day penod, the determination of the 

1 1 Director of Planning shall become a final determination. Upon receipt of any timely request 

12 for hearing, the Director of Planning shall schedule a heanng before the Commission within 3( 

13 days. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the compliance of the housing developmerf 

14 plan with this Section, and shall not include a challenge to the amount of the housing 

1 5 requirement imposed on the ((office)) development project by the Department or the 

16 Commission. At the hearing, the Commission may either make such revisions ((of)) to the 

17 Director of Planning 's initial determination as it may deem just, or confirm the Director of 

18 Planning 's initial determination. The Commission's determination shall then become a final 

19 determination, and the Director of Planning shall provide written notice of the final 

20 determination to the sponsor and to any person who timely requested a hearing of the 

21 Director of Planning 's determination. The Director of Planning shall also provide written notice 

22 to the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection that the housing units to be 

23 constructed pursuant to such plan are subject to this ordinance. 

24 (d) In making a determination as to whether a sponsor's housing development plan 

25 complies with this Section, the Director ot Planning and the Commission shall credit to the 



1 



SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 20 

5/26/99 



sponsor any excess Interim Guideline credits or excess credits ((which)) that the sponsor 
elects to apply against its housing requirement. The remaining housing units required shall be 
subject to the requirements of ((Part)) subsection (a) of this Section. 

(e) ((With respect to office development projects receiving a project authorization 
from the Commission under Planning Code Section 322 after January 1 , 1990, p))Prior to the 
issuance by the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection of the first site or building 
permit for a((n office)) development project s-bject to this Section, the sponsor must: 

(1 ) Provide evidence to the Director of Planning in writing that it has paid in full the 
sum or transferred title of the land required by ((Part)) subsection (a) of this Section to one or 
more housing developers; 

(2) Notify the Director of Planning that construction of the housing units has 
commenced, evidenced by: 

(A) The City's issuance of site and building permits for the entire housing 
development project, 

(B) Written authorization from the housing developer and the construction lender 
that construction may proceed, 

(C) An executed construction contract between the housing developer and a general 
contractor, and 

(D) The issuance of a performance bond enforceable by the construction lender for 
100 percent of the replacement cost of the housing project; and 

(3) Provide evidence satisfactory to the Director of Planning that ((62 percent of)) 
the units required to be constructed will be affordable to qualifying households for 50 years 
through an enforcement mechanism approved by the Director of Planning pursuant to 
((Parts)) subsections (b) through (d) of this Section. 

SUPERVISOR 



board of supervisors Page 21 

5/26/99 



25 



I 

1 ((With respect to office development projects receiving a project authorization before 

2 January 1, 1990, the sponsor shall be required to comply with conditions (1) through (3) 

3 above prior to the issuance by the Superintendent of the first certificate of occupancy for the 

4 office development project.)) The ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection shall 

5 provide notice in writing to the Director of Planning at least five business days prior to 

6 issuance of the first site or building permit((, or, in the case of projects approved before 

7 January 1 , 1990, the first certificate of occupancy,)) for any ((office)) development project for 

8 which the sponsor elects to pay a sum or contribute land to one or more housing developers. 

9 If the Director of Planning notifies the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection within 

10 the five business days that the conditions of (1 ) through (3) of this subsection have not been 

1 1 met, the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection shall refuse any and all site or 

1 2 building permits or certificates of occupancy for the ((office)) development project. If the 

1 3 Director of Planning notifies the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection that the 

14 sponsor has complied with these conditions or fails to respond within five business days, the 

15 ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection shall not disapprove a site or building permit 

16 or certificate of occupancy pursuant to this Section. Any failure of the ((Superintendent)) 

17 Director of Building Inspection or the Director of Planning to give any notice under this Section 

18 shall not relieve a sponsor from compliance with this Section. Where the ((Supenntendent)) 

19 Director of Building Inspection issues any site or building permit or certificate of occupancy for 

20 the ((office)) development project in error, the Director of Planning shall initiate lien 

21 proceedings against the ((office)) development project under Section 313.9, and the 

22 ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection shall revoke any permit or certificate issued 

23 in error and refuse any site or building permit or certificate of occupancy until the sponsor has 

24 complied with this Section. 



. 



SUPERVISOR 

boaro of supervisors Page 22 

5/26/99 



(((f) Within three months of the effective date of this ordinance, the Director is hereby 
directed to prepare and publish written guidelines by which compliance with this Section shall 
be determined.)) 

(((g))) (Q Where the sponsor elects to pay a sum or contribute land of value 
equivalent to the in-lieu fee to one or more housing developers, the sponso/s responsibility 
for completing construction of and maintaining the affordability of housing ..-nits constructed 
ceases from and after the date on wfTich. 

(1 ) The conditions of (1 ) through (3) of ((Part)) subsection (e) of this Section have 
been met; and 

(2) A mechanism has been approved by the Director of Plannin g to enforce the 
requirement that ((62 percent of)) the housing units constructed will be 2^->rdc;Die to qualifying 
households continuously for 50 years. 

SEC. 313.6. COMPLIANCE THROUGH PAYMENT OF IN-LIEU FEE. 

(a) Commencing on ((January 1, 1995)) March 11, 1999 . the amount of the fee which may be 
paid by the sponsor of a((n office)) development project subject to this ordinance in lieu of 
developing and providing the housing required by Section 313.5 shall be ((computed as 
follows)) determined by the following formulas for each type of space proposed as part of the 
development project and subject to this ordinance : 

Net Addition Gross Sq. Ft. Entertainment Space * $5.29 = Total Fee 
Net Addition Gross Sq. Ft. Hotel Space * $4.25 = Total Fee 
Net Addition Gross Sq. Ft. Office Space * $7.05 = Total Fee 
Net Addition Gross So. Ft. Retail Space * $5.29 = Total Fee 



SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 23 

5/26/99 



1 Such in-lieu fee shall be revised effective January 1st of each year, commencing on January 

2 1 , ((1 996)) 2000 . by the percentage increase or decrease in the Average Area Purchase Pri< 

3 Safe Harbor Limitations for New Single-Family Residences for the San Francisco Primary 

4 Metropolitan Statistical Area ("PMSA") established by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") 

5 since January 1st of the previous year; provided, however, that in the event that said 

6 percentage increase exceeds 20 percent, the in-lieu fee shall be increased by 20 percent, ani 

7 the difference between the percentage increase in the Average Area Purchase Pnce and 20 

8 percent shall be carried over and added to the in-lieu fee adjustment for the following calenda 

9 year. In the event that the IRS does not adjust the above figure within a 14-month period, the I 

10 Commission may authorize and certify a study for adjusting the last published IRS figure, to 

1 1 be effective until the IRS revises the figure. In making a determination as to the amount of t 

12 fee to be paid, the Director of Planning shall credit to the sponsor any excess Interim 

13 Guideline credits or excess credits which the sponsor elects to apply against its housing 

14 requirement. 

15 (b) ((With respect to office development projects approved after January 1, 1990, 

16 p))Prior to the issuance by the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection of the first 

1 7 site or building permit for a((n office)) development project subject to this ordinance, the 

18 sponsor must notify the Director of Planning in writing that it has either (i) satisfied the 

19 conditions of Section 313.5(e) or (ii) paid in full the sum required by this Section to the 

20 Controller. ((With respect to office development projects approved before January 1 , 1990, if 

21 the sponsor has not satisfied conditions (1 ) through (3) of Section 31 3.5(e), the sponsor shall 

22 be required to notify the Director in writing that it has paid in full the sum required by this 

23 Section prior to the issuance by the Superintendent of the first certificate of occupancy for the 

24 office development project.)) If the sponsor fails by the applicable date to demonstrate to the 

25 Director of Planning that the sponsor ((payment)) has satisfied the conditions of Section 

SUPERVISOR 



I 



board of supervisors Page 24 

5/26/99 



313.5(e) or paid the applicable sum in full to the Controller, the Director of Building Inspection 
((been made in full, the Superintendent)) shall deny any and all site or building permits or 
certificates of occupancy for the ((office)) development project until the Director of Planning 
notifies the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection that such payment has been 
made, and the Director of Planning shall immediately initiate lien proceedings against the 
sponsor's property pursuant to Section 313.9 to recover the fee. 

(c) Upon payment of the fe*e in full to the Controller and upon request of the 
sponsor, the Controller shall issue a certification that the fee has been paid. The sponsor 
shall present such certification to the Director of Planning prior to the issuance by the 
((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection of the first site or building permit or 
certificate of occupancy for the ((office)) development project. The ((Superintendent)) Director 
of Building Inspection shall provide notice in writing to the Director of Planning at least five 
business days prior to issuing the first site or building permit or certificate of occupancy for 
any ((office)) development project subject to this Section. If the Director of Planning notifies 
the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection within such time that the sponsor has 
not complied with the provisions of this Section, the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building 
Inspection shall deny any and all site or building permits or certificates of occupancy. If the 
Director of Planning notifies the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection that the 
sponsor has complied with this Section, or fails to respond within five business days, a site or 
building permit or certificate of occupancy shall not be disapproved pursuant to this Section. 
Any failure of the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection or the Director of Planning 
to give any notice under this Section shall not relieve a sponsor from compliance with this 
Section. Where the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection issues any site or 
building permit or certificate of occupancy for the ((office)) development project in error, or 
where a sponsor fails for aViy reason to pay the in-lieu fee to the Controller in compliance with 

SUPERVISOR 



board of supervisors Page 25 

5/26/99 



1 this Section prior to the ((Superintendent)) Director of Building Inspection 's issuance of the 

2 first site or building permit or certificate of occupancy for the ((office)) development project, th 

3 Director of Planning shall immediately initiate lien proceedings against the ((office)) 

4 development project under Section 313.9 to recover the fee, and the ((Superintendent)) 

5 Director of Building Inspection shall revoke any permit or certificate issued in error and refuse 

6 any site or building permit or certificate of occupancy until the sponsor has complied with this 

7 Section. 
8 
9 SEC. 313.7. COMPLIANCE THROUGH COMBINATION OF PAYMENT TO 

10 HOUSING DEVELOPER AND PAYMENT OF IN-LIEU FEE. The sponsor of a((n office)) 

1 1 development project subject to this ordinance may elect to satisfy its housing reguirement by 

12 a combination of paying money or contributing land to one or more housing developers under .• 

13 Section 313.5 and paying a partial amount of the in-lieu fee to the Coiitrofei under Section 

14 313.6. In the case of such election, the sponsor must pay a sum su^r. ihat each gross sguare 

1 5 foot of net addition of ((office space)) each type of space subject to li ti s ord - nance is 

16 accounted for in either the payment of a sum or contnbution of land to one or more housing 

1 7 developers or the payment of a fee to the Controller. The housing unite instructed by a 

1 8 housing developer must conform to all reguirements of this ordinance, n.-.luding, but not 

19 limited to, the proportion that must be affordable to qualifying households as set forth in 

20 Section 313.5. All of the reguirements of Sections 313.5 and 313.6 shall apply, including the 

21 requirements with respect to the timing of issuance of site and building permits and 

22 certificates of occupancy for the ((office)) development project and payment of the in-lieu f 
23 

24 SEC. 313.8. TRANSFER OF HOUSING CREDITS, (a) In determining whether a 

25 sponsor is in compliance with this ordinance, the Director of Planning or the Commission shalli 



, 



4 



SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 26 

5/26/99 



credit against all or part of a housing requirement for any sponsor of any ((office)) 
development project credits, which shall be denominated "excess Interim Guidelines credits," 
obtained by the sponsor which: 

(1) Have received final approval under the Interim Guidelines as of August 18, 
1985, but which have not been applied to a((n office)) development project because the 
((office)) development project has not been approved by the Director of Planning or the 
Commission or which are in excess of those credits required to satisfy the housing 
requirement under the Interim Guidelines; or 

(2) Have received preliminary approval prior to August 18, 1985, received final 
approval within six months of August 18, 1985, and are in excess of those credits required to 
satisfy the housing requirement under the Interim Guidelines or this ordinance. This six- 
month period may be extended for a maximum of two six-month periods where, based upon 
evidence submitted by the sponsor, the Director of Planning or Planning Commission 
determine within six months of August 18, 1985, or within a six-month extension, that (1) there 
is good cause for an extension or an additional extension, (2) the failure to obtain final 
approval of credits is beyond the sponsor's immediate control, and (3) the sponsor has made 
a reasonable effort to obtain final approval of credits. 

Excess Interim Guideline credits may be applied against a sponsor's housing 
requirement under this ordinance on the basis of two and three tenths (2.3) excess Interim 
Guideline credits against one housing unit required to be provided under Section 313.5. 
Excess Interim Guideline Credits may be applied against a sponsor's housing requirement 
under this ordinance only for those projects obtaining project authorizations as defined in 
Planning Code Section 320(h) on or before February 28. 1999 ((in the approval period ending 
within 34 months following the effective date of this ordinance)). No excess Interim Guideline 

SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 27 

5/26/99 



« 



1 Credits may be applied against a sponsor's housing requirement for any project authorization 

2 issued after that date. 

3 (b) In making their determination as to whether a sponsor's housing development 

4 plan complies with Sections 313.5, 313.6, and 313.7, the Director of Planning or the 

5 Commission shall credit to the sponsor any housing units constructed or in-lieu fee paid in 

6 excess of that required to satisfy the housing unit requirement under this ordinance, which 

7 shall be denominated "excess credits'" The Director of Planning or the Commission shall 

8 permit the transfer of any excess credits received under this ordinance to be applied to satisfy 

9 all or part of a housing requirement for any other ((office)) development project that is subject 

10 to the provisions of this ordinance. Each excess credit shall be equivalent to one housing unit 

1 1 as computed under Section 313.5((, or a payment of $18,264.25 if the sponsor elects to pay a 

12 sum to a housing developer under Section 313.5 or an in-lieu fee under Section 313.6. The 

13 sum of $18,264.25 shall be revised effective January 1st of each year concurrently and in 

14 accordance with the same procedures used for the revision of the in-lieu fee in Section 

15 313.6)). Excess credits may be obtained only under Section 313.11 or if: 

16 (1 ) They have been obtained after the commencement of construction of housing in 

1 7 compliance with all of the requirements of Section 313.5, the payment of a sum or contribution 

18 of land to one or more housing developers in compliance with all of the requirements of 

19 Section 313.5, or payment of an in-lieu fee to the Controller in compliance with all of the 

20 requirements of Section 313.6 or a combination of the above under Section 313.7. 

21 Compliance with these sections requires construction of the total number of housing units 

22 required, the percentage of such units which must be affordable to qualifying households, and 

23 the establishment of a mechanism approved by the Director of Planning to enforce the 

24 requirement that ((62 percent of)) the units constructed will be affordable for 50 years to 
* 25 qualifying households; and 

SUPERVISOR 



board of supervisors Page 28 

5/26/99 



(2) The excess credits result from either: 

(A) Abandonment of the ((office)) development project that received approval by the 
Commission as evidenced by cancellation of the site or building permit or the site or building 
permit application; or 

(B) A decrease in the net addition of gross square feet of ((office space)) each type 
of space subject to this ordinance as a result of Commission, Board of ((Permit)) Appeals, 
Board of Supervisors, or court actiontaken after: 

(i) The amount of such net addition of gross square feet of each type of space 
subject to this ordinance has been determined by the Commission under Section 313.4; and 

(ii) The sponsor has paid a sum to one or more housing developers and 
construction of the housing units has commenced under Section 313.5, or the sponsor has 
paid an in-lieu fee under Section 313.6, or a combination of the above under Section 313.7. 

Excess credits may be applied against a sponsor's housing requirement under this 
ordinance only for those applications for a building or site permit filed within three years of the 
date on which the excess credits are issued. The date on which such excess credits are 
issued shall be the earlier of the sponsor's abandonment of the ((office)) development project 
under which the credits were obtained as evidenced by the cancellation of the site or building 
permit or the site or building permit application, the commencement of construction of each of 
the housing units under Section 313.5, or the payment of the in-lieu fee under Section 31 3.6 
with respect to such credits. No excess credits may be applied against a sponsor's housing 
requirement for any application for a building or site permit filed after that date. 

(c) If the number of excess credits or excess Interim Guidelines credits held by a 
sponsor is not sufficient to satisfy the entire housing requirement of that sponsor's ((office)) 
development project subject to the provisions of this ordinance, including, but not limited to 
the requirement that a percentage of the housing units must be affordable to qualifying 

SUPERVISOR 



board of supervisors Page 29 

5/26/99 



25 



1 households, then the balance of the housing requirement shall be satisfied in accordance witl 

2 the provisions of this ordinance, including the requirement set forth in Section 313.5 that ((62 

3 percent of)) the units constructed must be affordable to qualifying households. 

4 (d) Excess credits and excess Interim Guideline credits may be transferred from 

5 one sponsor to another only if: 

6 (1 ) The Director of Planning has been notified in wnting of the proposed transfer of 

7 the credits; 

8 (2) The Director of Planning has determined that the transfer or sponsor has 

9 obtained the credits through meeting the requirements of either ((Part)) subsection (a) or (b) 

10 of this Section; and 

1 1 (3) The transfer is made in writing, a true copy of which is provided to the Director of 

12 Planning . 

1 3 (e) The City makes no warranties that any excess credits or excess Interim 

14 Guidelines credits will be marketable during the period in which this ordinance is in effect or 

1 5 thereafter. The City makes no warranties that an applicant possessing excess credits or 

16 excess Interim Guidelines credits is entitled to Commission approval of a((n office)) 

1 7 development project subject to this ordinance. 
18 

19 SEC. 313.9. LIEN PROCEEDINGS, (a) A sponsor's failure to comply with the 

20 requirements of Sections 313.5, 31 3. o and 313.7 shall constitute cause for the City to record a 

21 special assessment lien against the ((office)) development project in the sum of (($18,264.25 

22 for each housing unit)) the in-lieu fee required under this ordinance , as adjusted under Section 

23 313.6 . ((The amount of the lien per unit shall be revised annually according to the formula in 

24 Section 313.6.)) 



' 






SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 30 

5/26/99 



(b) The Director of Planning shall initiate proceedings to impose the special 
assessment lien by preparing a preliminary report notifying the sponsor of a special 
assessment hearing to confirm such report by the Board of Supervisors at least 10 days 
before the date of the hearing. The report to the sponsor shall contain the sponsor's name, a 
description of the sponsor's ((office)) development project, a description of the parcels of real 
property to be encumbered as set forth in the Assessor's Map Books for the current year, a 
description of the alleged violation ofThis ordinance, and shall fix a time, date, and place for 
hearing. The Director of Planning shall cause this report to be mailed to each owner of record 
of the parcels of real property to be assessed. 

(c) At the hearing fixed for consideration of the report, the Board of Supervisors 
shall hear the report with any objections of the owners of the parcels liable to be assessed. 
The Board of Supervisors may make such revisions, corrections or modifications of the report 
as it may deem just. In the event that the Board of Supervisors is satisfied with the 
correctness of the report as submitted or as revised, corrected or modified, it shall ((be)) 
confirm((ed)) it as a final report. Any delinquent account may be removed from the report by 
payment in full at any time prior to confirmation of a final report. The Director of Planning shall 
cause the confirmed report to be verified in form sufficient to meet recording requirements. 

(d) Upon confirmation of the report by the Board of Supervisors, the delinquent 
charges contained therein shall constitute a special assessment against the parcel or parcels 
used in the ((office)) development project. Each such assessment shall be subordinate to all 
existing special assessment liens previously imposed upon such parcels and paramount to all 
other liens except those for State, County, and municipal taxes with which it shall be upon 
parity. The lien shall continue until the assessment and all interest due and payable thereon 
are paid to the Tax Collector of the City. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and 
enforcement of municipal taxes shall be applicable to said special assessment. 

SUPERVISOR 



board of supervisors Page 31 

5/26/99 



1 (e) The Director of Planning shall cause the confirmed and verified report to be 

2 recorded in the County Recorder's Office and the special assessment lien on each parcel of 

3 property described in said report shall carry additional charges for administrative expenses o 

4 $50 or 10 percent of the amount of the unpaid balance, whichever is greater, plus interest at , 

5 rate of 1-/4 percent per full month compounded monthly from the date of the recordation of th 

6 lien on all charges due. 

7 (f) The Director of Planning shall file a certified copy of each confirmed final report 

8 with the Controller and Tax Collector within 10 days after confirmation of the report, 

9 whereupon it shall be the duty of said officers to add the amount of said assessment to the 

10 next regular bill for taxes levied against said parcel or parcels of land for municipal purposes, 

1 1 and thereafter said amount shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as the 

12 City ((and County of San Francisco))^ taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same 

13 procedure under foreclosure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for property taxes 

14 the City ((and County of San Francisco)). Except for the release of lien recording fee 

15 authorized below, all sums collected by the Tax Collector pursuant to this ordinance shall be 

16 held in trust by the Treasurer and deposited in the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund 

1 7 established in Section 313.12. 

18 (g) On payment to the Tax Collector of the special assessment, the Tax Collector 

19 shall cause to be recorded a release of lien with the County Recorder, and from the sum 

20 collected pursuant to ((Part)) subsection (a) of this Section, shall pay to the county recorder a 

21 recording fee of (($6.00)) $11.00 . 

22 (h) Any notice required to be given to a sponsor or owner shall be sufficiently given - 

23 or served upon the sponsor or owner for all purposes hereunder if personally served upon the \l 

24 sponsor or owner or if deposited, postage prepaid, in a post office letterbox addressed in the U 

25 name of the sponsor or owner at the official address of the sponsor or owner maintained by y I 

SUPERVISOR 



•J 



' 



board of supervisors Page 32 

5/26/99 



the Tax Collector for the mailing of tax bills or, if no such address is available, to the sponsor 
at the address of the ((office)) development project. 

SEC. 313.10. IN-LIEU FEE REFUND WHEN BUILDING PERMIT EXPIRES PRIOR 
TO COMPLETION OF WORK AND COMMENCEMENT OF OCCUPANCY. In the event a 
building permit expires prior to completion of the work on and commencement of occupancy 
of a((n office)) development project so that it .v'ill be necessary to obtain a new permit to carry 
out any development, the obligation to comply with this ordinance shall be cancelled, and any 
in-lieu fee previously paid to the Controller shall be refunded. If and when the sponsor applies 
for a new permit, the procedures set forth in this ordinance regarding construction of housing 
or payment of the in-lieu fee shall be followed. 

SEC. 313.11. ONE-TIME FEE PAYMENT. In the event that a((n office)) development 
project for which housing units have been constructed or an in-lieu fee has been fully paid is 
demolished or converted to ((non-office)) a use or uses not subject to this ordinance prior to 
the expiration of its estimated useful life, the City shall (((1 ))) either grant to the sponsor 
excess credits transferable under Section 313.8 for a portion of any housing units actually 
constructed and for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued, or (((2))) refund to the 
sponsor a portion of the amount of an in-lieu fee paid. The portion of excess credits granted 
or the fee refunded shall be determined on a pro rata basis according to the ratio of the 
remaining useful life of the project at the time of demolition or conversion in relation to its total 
useful life. For purposes of this ordinance, the useful life of a((n office)) development project 
shall be 50 years. 



SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 33 

5/26/99 






1 SEC. 313.12. CITYWIPE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND. All monies contributed 

2 pursuant to Sections 313.6 or 313.7 or assessed pursuant to Section 313.9 shall be depositee • 

3 in the special fund maintained by the Controller called the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund 

4 ("Fund"). The receipts in the Fund are hereby appropriated in accordance with law to be used • 

5 solely to increase the supply of housing affordable to qualifying households subject to the 

6 conditions of this Section. The Fund shall be administered and expended by the Director of 

7 Planning , who shall have the authority to prescribe rules and regulations governing the Fund 

8 which are consistent with this ordinance. No portion of the Fund may be used, by way of loan I 

9 or otherwise, to pay any administrative, general overhead, or similar expense of any entity, 

10 except that (($100,000)) $10,000 from the Fund shall be allocated by the Director within six 

1 1 months following the effective date of this ordinance to ((update the Recht Hausrath report 

12 dated July 1984 and the Department of City Planning report dated November 1994 referred ti 

13 in Section 313.2 to show the relationship between office and other commercial development 

14 and housing demand)) pay consultants for conducting research necessary to support the 

15 "Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis," prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., and dated 

16 June 1997 . 
17 

18 SEC. 313.13. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 'S EVALUATION. Within 18 months 

19 following the effective date of this ordinance, the Director of Planning shall report to the 

20 Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the Mayor ((the results of the study to be financed 

21 by $100,000 from the Affordable Housing Fund as set forth in Section 313.12 and recommend 

22 whether the Office Affordable Housing Production Program Ordinance should be amended. 

23 The Director shall also report on an annual basis)) on the current supply and demand of 

24 affordable housing in the City, the status of compliance with this ordinance, and the efficacy of 
£ 25 this ordinance in mitigating the City's shortage of affordable housing available to employees 

SUPERVISOR 



J 






board of supervisors Page 34 

5/26/99 



1 working in ((office)) development projects subject to this ordinance. Thereafter, if in the 

2 discretion of the Director of Planning there has been a substantial change in the San 
Francisco and/or regional economies since the effective date of this ordinance, the Director of 
Planning may recommend to the Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the Mayor that 
this ordinance be amended or rescinded to alleviate any undue burden on commercial 
development in the City that the ordinance may impose. 

SEC. 313.14. PARTIAL INVALIDITY AND SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this 
ordinance, or its application to any ((office)) development project or to any geographical area 
of the City, is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance, or the application of such provision 
to other ((office)) development projects or to any other geographical areas of the City, shall 
not be affected thereby. . 

Section 2. Chapter II, Article III of the San Francisco Planning Code is hereby 
amended by adding Section 313.15 to read as follows: 

SEC. 313.15. SUNSET CLAUSE. The provisions of this ordinance shall expire four 
years from the effective date of this ordinance. 

Section 3. Chapter II, Article III of the San Francisco Planning Code is hereby 
amended by amending Section 314.1 to read as follows: 

SEC. 314.1. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall govern interpretation of this 
Section: 

SUPERVISOR 

board OF supervisors Page 35 

5/26/99 









1 (a) "Child-care facility" shall mean a child day-care facility as defined in California 

2 Health and Safety Code Section 1596.750. 

3 (b) "Child care provider" shall mean a provider as defined in California Health and 

4 Safety Code Section 1596.791. 

5 (c) "Commission" shall mean the ((City)) Planning Commission. 

6 (d) "Department" shall mean the Department of ((City)) Planning. 

7 (e) "Director of Planning " sfiall mean the Director of ((City)) the Planning 

8 Department or his or her designee, including other City agencies or departments. 

9 (f) First certificate of occupancy" shall mean either a temporary certificate of 

10 occupancy or a Certificate of Final Completion and Occupancy, as defined in San Francisco 

1 1 Building Code Section 307, whichever is issued first, 
r 12 (g) "Hotel" shall mean a building containing ((six or more guest rooms as defined i 

13 San Francisco Housing Code Section 203.7 intended or designed to be used, or which are 

14 used, rented, or hired out to be occupied, or which are occupied for sleeping purposes and 

15 dwelling purposes by guests, whether rent is paid in money, goods, or services, including 

16 motels as defined in San Francisco Housing Code Section 203.13)) rooms, or suites of two or 

17 more rooms, each of which may or may not feature a bathroom and cooking facility or 

18 kitchenette and is intended or primarily suitable to be occupied by a visitor or visitors to the 

19 City who pay for accommodations on a daily or weekly basis but who do not remain for more 

20 than 31 consecutive days . 

21 (h) "Hotel use" shall mean space within a structure or portion thereof intended or 

22 primarily suitable for the operation of a hotel, including all office and other uses accessory to 

23 the renting of guest rooms, but excluding retail uses and office uses not accessory to the hotel 

24 use. 
S 25 



■ 



* 



SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 36 

5/26/99 



(i) "Household of low income" shall mean a household c jmposed of one or more 
persons with a combined annual net income for all adult members which does not exceed the 
qualifying limit for a lower-income family of a size equivalent to the number of persons 
residing in such household, as set forth for the County of San Francisco in California 
Administrative Code Section 6932. 

(j) "Household of moderate income" shall mean a household composed of one or 

4. 

more persons with a combined annu§l net income for all adult members which does not 
exceed the qualifying limit for a median- income family of a size equivalent to the number of 
persons residing in such household, as set forth for the County of San Francisco in California 
Administrative Code Section 6932. 

(k) "Licensed child-care facility" shall mean a child-care facility which has been 
issued a valid license by the California Department of Social Services pursuant to California 
Health and Safety Code Sections 1596.80 — 1596.875, 1596.95 — 1597.09, or 1597.30 — 
1597.61. 

(I) "Net addition of gross square feet of hotel space" shall mean gross floor area as 
defined in Planning Code Section 102.8 to be occupied by, or primarily serving, hotel use, less 
the gross floor area in any structure demolished or rehabilitated as part of the proposed hotel 
development project space used primarily and continuously for office or hotel use and not 
accessory to any use other than office or hotel use for five years prior to Planning 
Commission approval of the hotel development project subject to this Section, or for the life of 
the structure demolished or rehabilitated, whichever is shorter. 

(m) "Net addition of gross square feet of office space" shall mean gross floor area as 
defined in Planning Code Section 102.8 to be occupied by, or primarily serving, office use, 
less the gross floor area in any structure demolished or rehabilitated as part of the proposed 
office development project space used primarily and continuously for office or hotel use and 

SUPERVISOR 



board of supervisors Page 37 

5/26/99 



1 not accessory to any use other than office or hotel use for five yea s prior to Planning 

2 Commission approval of the office development project subject to this Section, or for the life o 

3 the structure demolished or rehabilitated, whichever is shorter. 

4 (n) "Nonprofit child-care provider" shall mean a child-care provider that is an 

5 organization organized and operated for nonprofit purposes within the provisions of California 

6 Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 23701 — 23710, inclusive, as demonstrated by a 

7 written determination from the California Franchise Tax Board exempting the organization 

8 from taxes under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 23701 . 

9 (o) "Office development project" shall mean any new construction, addition, 

10 extension, conversion or enlargement, or combination thereof, of an existing structure which 

1 1 includes any gross square feet of office space. 

12 (p) "Office use" shall mean space within a structure or portion thereof intended or 

1 3 primarily suitable for occupancy by persons or entities which perform, provide for their own 

14 benefit, or provide to others at that location services including, but not limited to, the following: 

15 ((P))p_rofessional, banking, insurance, management, consulting, technical, sales and design, 

16 or the office functions of manufacturing and warehousing businesses, but excluding retail 

17 uses; repair; any business characterized by the physical transfer of tangible goods to 

18 customers on the premises; wholesale shipping, receiving and storage; design showcases or 

19 any other space intended and primanly suitable for display of goods; and child-care facilities. 

20 This definition shall include all uses encompassed within the meaning of Planning Code 

21 Section 219. 

22 (q) "Retail use" shall mean space within any structure or portion thereof intended or ; 

23 primarily suitable for occupancy by persons or entities which supply commodities to 

24 customers on the premises including, but not limited to, stores, shops, restaurants, bars, 



25 



SUPERVISOR 

board of supervisors Page 38 

5/26/99 



eating and drinking businesses, and the uses defined in Planning Code Sections 218 and 220 
through 225, and also including all space accessory to such retail use. 

(r) "Sponsor" shall mean an applicant seeking approval for construction of an office 
or hotel development project subject to this Section and such applicant's successors and 
assigns. 

(s) "Superintendent" shall mean the Superintendent, Bureau of Building Inspection. 



APPROVED AS TO FORM: 
LOUISE H. RENNE, City Attorney 



RECOMMENDED: 



By: 




U 



Andrew W. Schwartz 
Deputy City Attorney 




By: 



^^-~ 



Gerald G. Green 
Director of Planning 



SUPERVISOR 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



Page 39 
5/26/99 



LEGISLATIVE DIGEST 

AMENDING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER II, PART II OF THE SAN FRANCISCO 
MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING CODE) BY AMENDING SECTIONS 313, 3 1 3. 1, 
3 1 3.2, 3 13.3, 3 1 3.4, 3 1 3.5, 3 1 3.6, 3 1 3.7, 3 1 3.8, 3 1 3.9, 3 1 3. 1 0, 3 1 3. 1 1 . 3 1 3. 12,31 3. 1 3, 
AND 313.14, AND BY ADDING SECTION 313.15, TO RENAME THE "OFFICE 
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION PROGRAM" AS THE "JOBS-HOUSING 
LINKAGE PROGRAM," TO APPLY II II 'PROGRAM fOALJ NEW AND 
EXPANDED HOTEL SPACE OF AT LEAST 25,000 SQUARE FEET, AND TO ALL 
NEW AND EXPANDED RETAIL SPACE OF AT LEAST 100,000 SQUARE FEET, 
AND BY AMENDING SECTION 314.1 OF THE CHILDCARE ORDINANCE TO 
CONFORM TO THE NEW DEFINITION OF "HO II I 

In 1985, after a study found that large-scale office development attracted additional 
employees to the City and increased the demand lor housing, the City enacted the Office 
Affordable Housing Production Program (OAHPP) (Planning Code §§ 313.1-313.14). 
The OAHPP required office developers to pay a fee of $5. 34 per new square foot of 
office space to the Cityw ide Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) or an equal amount to a 
housing developer to construct new housing units, 62% of which must be affordable. 

A 1997 study by Keyser Marston Associates demonstrated that other commercial uses 
similarly created demand for housing. This legislation expands the OAHPP, renamed the 
Jobs-Housing Linkage Program (JHLP), to additional commercial uses, including retail, 
entertainment, and hotel development projects. The fees and the amount of housing in 
the JHLP have been set far below the amounts justified by project impacts described in 
the Keyser Marston study. The JHLP would remain in effect for four years. 

This legislation further modifies the imposition of impact fees on commercial 
development, as follows: 

1. Section 313.1(15) defines "entertainment use" as nighttime entertainment, 
movie theaters, adult theaters, amusement game arcades, and any other entertainment 
uses defined in the Planning Code. 

2. Section 313.1(40) keeps the definition of "retail use" as any space intended for 
supplying commodities to customers, including, but not limited to, stores, shops. 



' vRrOAHPTicfffdura 



restaurants, bars, eating and drinking businesses, and other uses defined as retail in the 
Planning Code, as well as all spaces accessory to such retail use. 

3. Section 313.3 applies this ordinance to all development projects that applied 
for environmental evaluation on or after January 1 , 1 999. It excludes the Mission Bay 
Project and development projects on government property and any Port and 
Redevelopment Agency property exempted by law from local land use controls. It 
further sets the threshold for the imposition of impact fees as follows: 

• 50,000 square feet of new entertainment development; 

• 25,000 square feet of new hotel development; 

• 25,000 square feet of new office development; and 

• 100,000 square feet of new retail development. 

4. Section 313.4 gives the commercial developer the option to comply with this 
ordinance by paying an in-lieu fee to the CAHF, by contributing money or land of value 
equivalent to the in-lieu fee to a housing developer to construct housing units, or through 
a combination of these two options. 

5. Section 313.5 allows the commercial developer to comply by contributing 
money or land of value equivalent to a housing developer to construct at least the 
following number housing units, of which 100% are to be affordable: 

• 14 units for each 100,000 square feet of new entertainment development; 

• 1 1 units for each 100,000 square feet of new hotel development; 

• 16.1 units for each 100,000 square feet of new office development; and 

• 14 units for each 100,000 square feet of new retail development. 

6. Section 313.6 allows the commercial developer to comply through payment of 
an in-lieu fee to the CAHF in the following amounts: 

• $5.29 per square foot of new entertainment development; 

• $4.25 per square foot of new hotel development; 

• $7.05 per square foot of new office development; and 

• $5.29 per square foot of new retail development. 

7. Section 313.13 provides that 18 months after the ordinance becomes effective, 
the Director of Planning may recommend that the JHLP be amended or rescinded to 
alleviate any undue burden on commercial development imposed by the program due to 
changes in the City and/or regional economies. 



I UIHM W MVV \RI HAMPPIc^iJ.i 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 2 and 3 - Files 99-1307 and 99-1304 



Note: These items were continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its 
meeting of February 2, 1999. 



Departments: 



Items: 



Department of Building Inspection (DBI) 
Mayor's Office of Housing 
Planning Department 

File 99-1307 



Resolution adopting the final negative declaration that 
the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program will have no 
significant impact on the environment, and adopting and 
incorporating the findings of the final negative 
declaration. 

File 99-1304 

Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter II, Part II of the 
Planning Code by amending Sections 313 and 313.1 to 
313.14, and by adding Section 313.15, to rename the 
"Office Affordable Housing Production Program" as the 
"Jobs-Housing Linkage Program" and to apply that 
program to large-scale hotel, entertainment, and retail 
developments, and by amending Section 314.1 of the 
Childcare Ordinance to conform to the new definition of 
"hotel". 



Description: 



By attracting additional employees to the City, large-scale 
commercial developments increase the demand for 
affordable housing, according to Ms. Catherine Bauman of 
the Planning Department. Therefore, the City currently 
requires the developers of office developments which 
exceed 25,000 square feet to mitigate those developments' 
impact on the demand for affordable housing in one of 
three ways. The office developers can either (a) build 
affordable housing units 1 which are to remain affordable 
for 50 years, (b) pay an in-lieu fee to the Citywide 
Affordable Housing Fund based on a current rate of $7.05 
per square foot of new office space, or (c) pay the same 



1 "Affordable housing units" refer to residential dwellings in housing projects which may have one, 
two, three, or four bedrooms. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

8 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

amount to housing developers to build affordable housing 
units on their behalf. 

The ordinance as amended (File 99-1304) would: 

• Expand the coverage of the Jobs-Housing Linkage 
Program from office development projects of at least 
25,000 square feet to also include other large-scale 
commercial development projects, which are defined as 
(a) all new and expanded hotel space of at least 25,000 
square feet, (b) all new and expanded entertainment 
space of at least 50,000 square feet, and (c) all new and 
expanded retail ^pace of at least 100,000 square feet. 

• Permit a commercial property developer to contribute 
land for affordable housing developments in lieu of the 
other mitigation payment options. The amount of land 
contributed would be determined by its value, which 
must be commensurate with the value of the other 
mitigation payment options. 

The proposed final negative declaration (File 99-1307) 
was prepared by the Planning Department following 
public review of the preliminary negative declaration it 
issued on April 3, 1999. The Planning Department found 
that there was no substantial evidence that the Jobs- 
Housing Linkage Program would have a significant effect 
on the environment. 

Comments: 1. The subject ordinance as amended would only apply to 

individual commercial property developments which 
exceed the following thresholds: (a) 25,000 square feet for 
office developments, (b) 25,000 square feet for hotel 
developments, (c) 50,000 square feet for entertainment 
developments, and (d) 100,000 square feet for retail 
developments. The subject ordinance does not apply to 
individual commercial property developments which 
occupy less space, according to Ms. Bauman. 

2. According to Mr. Andrew Schwartz of the City 
Attorney's Office, the developer of a commercial property 
which exceeded the square footage thresholds listed above 
could comply with the ordinance as amended by either (a) 
constructing themselves, or (b) contributing money, or 
land of equivalent value, to a developer to construct on 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 






Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



their behalf, at least the following number of affordable 
housing units which are to remain affordable for 50 years: 

• 11 affordable housing units for each 100,000 square 
feet of new hotel development; 

• 14 affordable housing units for each 100,000 square 
feet of new entertainment development; 

• 14 affordable housing units for each 100,000 square 
feet of new retail development; and 

• 16.1 affordable housing units for 100,000 square feet of 
new office development. 

3. Mr. Schwartz ^.arther states that a developer of a 
commercial property which exceeded the square footage 
thresholds could alternatively comply with the ordinance 
as amended through payment of an in-lieu fee to the 
Citywide Affordable Housing Fund which is administered 
by the Planning Department. The amount of the in-lieu 
fee, which would be subject to annual review 2 , would be 
based on: 

• $4.25 per square foot of new hotel development; 

• $5.29 per square foot of new entertainment 
development; 

• $5.29 per square foot of new retail development; and 

• $7.05 per square foot of new office development. 

4. According to Ms. Bauman, most office developers 
currently choose to pay the in-lieu fee rather than build 
the required number of affordable housing units 
themselves or contract with a developer to build the 
required affordable housing units on their behalf. The in- 
lieu fee revenue is held in the Citywide Affordable 
Housing Fund administered by the Planning Department 
which provides loans to affordable housing developers, 
subject to the approval of the Director of Planning, 
according to Mr. Joe LaTorre of the Mayor's Office of 
Housing. Mr. LaTorre states that the Mayors Office of 
Housing makes recommendations to the Director of 
Planning as to which proposed affordable housing 



2 Effective January 1 of each year, the ui-heu fee formula would be automatically revised by the 
percentage increase or decrease in the Average Area Purchase Price Safe Harbor Limitations for 
New Single-Family Residences for the San Francisco Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), 
prepared by the Internal Revenue Service. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



developments are in conformity with the subject 
legislation and the City's overall goals for housing 
development and which, therefore, are eligible to receive 
development loans from the Citywide Affordable Housing 
Fund and other funding sources. There is no stipulated 
maximum amount for development loans from the 
Citywide Affordable Housing Fund, according to Mr 
La Torre. 

5. As stated above, developers of office developments 
which exceed 25,000 square feet currently have three 
options to mitigate the impact of their developments on 
affordable housing. They can either (a) build affordable 
housing units which are to remain affordable for 50 years, 
(b) pay an in-hcu fee to the Citywide Affordable Housing 
Fund based on a current rate of $7.05 per square foot of 
new office space, or (c) pay the same amount to housing 
developers to build affordable housing units on their 
behalf. 

Under the ordinance as amended, the developers of 
commercial property developments which exceed the 
square footage thresholds listed in Comment No. 1 above 
would also be permitted to contribute land for affordable 
housing developments in lieu of the other mitigation 
payment options so long as the value of the land is equal 
to the m-lieu fee formula set out in Comment No. 2 above. 
Mr. Schwartz advises that valuation and acceptance of 
land would be subject to the approval of the Planning 
Department and the Mayor's Office of Housing, as part of 
their discussions with the commercial property developer 
and the housing developer. Mr. Schwartz states that the 
proposed amendments to the subject ordinance do not 
specify how land values would be determined or by whom. 

The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that the 
proposed amendments to the subject ordinance include, in 
the case of mitigation payment options which involve 
developer land contributions, a requirement that land 
values should be determined by an independent appraisal 
to be conducted by a qualified property appraiser selected 
by the City and compensated by the developer. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



6. Adoption of the proposed ordinance would result in 
increased revenues that would accrue to the Citywide 
Affordable Housing Fund or other benefits such as 
increased affordable housing units built by developers or 
increased contributions of land or money to affordable 
housing developers. As noted previously, most developers 
of office developments in excess of 25,000 square feet have 
historically chosen to pay the in-lieu fee rather than build 
the required number of affordable housing units 
themselves, or pay a housing developer to do so on their 
behalf. 

The actual revenue benefit to the Citywide Affordable 
Housing Fund which would result from adoption of this 
proposed ordinance would depend on the amount of new 
hotel, entertainment and retail development that would 
be subject to the new fees. According to Ms. Bauman, the 
Planning Department projects that for the ten years 
between 2000 and 2010 there will be (a) 5,492,000 square 
feet of new hotel development, and (b) 4,012,407 square 
feet of new entertainment and retail development. The 
total projected increase in such commercial property 
would be 9,504,407 square feet. 

The table below, based on the projections provided by the 
Planning Department, shows the potential maximum 
amount of new revenue that would accrue to the Citywide 
Affordable Housing Fund if (a) all of the projected square 
footage is actually constructed, (b) if all of the projected 
square footage is located in commercial property 
developments which exceed the square footage thresholds 
listed in Comment No. 1 above, (c) none of the 
developments are exempted under the subject ordinance 3 , 
and (d) all of the commercial developers choose to pay an 
in-lieu fee instead of either building affordable housing 
themselves or contributing money or land of an equivalent 
value to affordable housing developers. 



3 The ordinance currently exempts commercial property developments on land that is owned by 
Federal or State governments, or under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 
or the Port Authority. The ordinance as amended would further exempt Mission Bay redevelopment 
projects when application of the ordinance as amended would be inconsistent with the Mission Bay 
North Redevelopment Plan and Interagency Cooperation Agreement or the Mission Bay South 
Redevelopment Plan and Interagency Cooperation Agreement. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Potential Maximum New Citywide Affordable Housing Fund Revenue 
Based on Planned Commercial Development Activity 2000 - 2010 











Total Revenue 










In-lieu Fee Per 


to Citywide 




Type of 


No. 


of Square 


Square Foot of 


Affordable 




Development 




Feet 


Development 4 


Housing Fund 




Hotel 




5,492,000 


$4.25 


$23,341,000 




Entertainment/ 




4.012.407 


$5.29 


21.225.633 




Retail 












Total 




9,504,407 




$44,566,633 





Recommendations: 



Should all of the above-listed planned new square footage 
be constructed as part of commercial property 
developments which exceed the square footage thresholds 
of the subject ordinance as amended but do not fall within 
it- permitted exemptions, then the Citywide Affordable 
Housing Fund would realize additional in-lieu fees in the 
projected amount of $44,566,633 over the ten years 
between 2000 and 2010, or the City would receive 
equivalent value through construction of affordable 
housing units or the contribution of money or land to 
affordable housing developers in an amount equivalent to 
the value of such affordable housing units. 

Ms. Bauman states, however, that the high square 
footage thresholds specified by the subject ordinance, in 
combination with the subject ordinance's permitted 
exemptions, make it highly unlikely that in-lieu fee 
revenues would be as high as those indicated in the table 
above. However, if only 50 percent of the projected new 
development is subject to the in-lieu fee, total revenue to 
the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund would exceed 
$22,000,000 over the next ten years. 

1. Amend the subject ordinance to include, in the case of 
mitigation payment options which involve developer land 
contributions, a requirement that land values should be 
determined by an independent appraisal to be conducted 



4 The in-lieu fee would only be applied to those commercial property developments which meet the 
threshold size requirements described in Comment No. 1. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 






Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



by a qualified property appraiser selected by the City and 
compensated by the developer. 

2. Approval of this proposed legislation is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis 
Cmr of San Francisco 



Prepared for: 

Office of Affordable Housing Production Program (OAHPP) 

City and County of San Francisco 



Prepared by: 

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 
Gabriel Roche, Inc. 



July 1997 



Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis 



o City of San Francisco 

o 



Prepared for : 

Office of Affordable Housing Production Program (OAHPP) 
City and County of San Francisco 



• 






July 1997 

KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Golden Gateway Commons 

55 Pacific Avenue Mall 

San Francisco, California 94111 



500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1400 
Los Angeles, California 90071 

1660 Hotel Circle North, Suite 716 
San Diego, California 92108 



• 



TABLES AND EXHIBITS 



Table 1 -Historic Office Building Construction 

Table 2 Employees, Employee Households, and Occupational Distribution 

Table 3 Very Low Income - Estimate of Qualifying Households 

Table 4 Low Income - Estimate of Qualifying Households 

Table 5 Moderate Income ( 1 00% of Median) - Estimate of Qualifying Households 

Table 6 Moderate Income (120% of Median) - Estimate of Qualifying Households 

Table 7 

Appendix A: 

Table Summary of Land Use Activity Types 

Table Historic Employment Growth by Land Use Activity 

Table Historic Employment Growth by Land Use Activity 

Table B.2. 1 . Work and Residence Location 

Table B 5-1 San Francisco Housing Stock Changes 

Table B.5-2 Units Completed by Building Types 

Table B.5-3 New Income-Restricted Affordable Housing Construction 

Table B. 5-4 Major New Income Restricted Affordable Housing Construction 

Table B 6-1 .Affordable Housing Construction -Major Income-Restricted Projects in the Pipeline 

Table C.6 b. 1 San Francisco Wages by Land Use Activities 

Table C.6.b.2. 1997 Occupational Wages for San Francisco 

Table D. 1 OR (Studios) Estimate of Subsidy Requirement per Rental Unit 

Table D. 1 OS (Studios) Estimate of Subsidy Requirement per Ownership Unit 

Table D. 1 . 1 R (1 Bedroom) Estimate of Subsidy Requirement per Rental Unit 

Table D. 1. IS (1 Bedroom) Estimate of Subsidy Requirement per Ownership Unit 

Table D 1 . 2R (2 Bedroom) Estimate of Subsidy Requirement per Rental Unit 

Table D 1 2S (2 Bedroom) Estimate of Subsidy Requirement per Ownership Unit 

Table D 1. 3R (3 Bedroom) Estimate of Subsidy Requirement per Rental Unit 

Table D 1 . 3 S (3 Bedroom) Estimate of Subsidy Requirement per Ownership Unit 



< 



' 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 



This report is an economic nexus analysis which establishes the relationships among construction 
of new buildings, employees, households and affordable housing demand. The report has been 
prepared for the San Francisco Planning Department's Office Affordable Housing Production 
Program (OAHPP) for the purposes of updating and possibly expanding the program. The report 
is a "nexus" analysis to meet the legal requirements for linking new construction of workspace 
buildings with an obligation for affordable housing. 

The analysis of historic construction and employment and housing production in San Francisco 
demonstrates the relationships among buildings, employees and housing demand. Analysis of 
housing affordability conditions and projections of employment and housing production confirms 
that affordable housing will not be produced in sufficient supply to meet the demand generated by 
new worker households. 

The nexus analysis concludes with coefficients expressing the number of housing units by 
affordability level that are linked to each square foot of building area, by building type. When 
these housing demand coefficients are multiplied by the affordability gap for each income 
category, the total housing nexus cost is determined, as follows: 

Total Housing Nexus Cost (Per Sq.Ft. Building Area) 



Office 

R&D 

Medical 

Cultural/ 

Institutional 

Retail 

Hotel 

These costs quantify the total linkage between new workspace buildings and the demand for new 
affordable housing. These total nexus costs represent the legal ceiling for potential fees: THE 
TOTAL NEXUS COSTS ARE NOT RECOMMENDED FEE LEVELS An appropriate fee 
range for San Francisco will be explored in the next phase of the work program. 



;ry Low 


Low 


Income 


Income 


$12.19 


$7.86 


7.43 


5.89 


10.29 


7.16 


4.26 


3.12 


11.52 


7.60 


9.47 


5.96 



Moderate 




Income 


Total 


$2.62 


$22.67 


1.78 


15.10 


2.40 


19.85 


0.95 


8.33 


2.02 


21.14 


1.56 


16.99 



Conservative Aspects of this Analysis 

This analysis and report have been prepared for the express and single purpose of supporting an 
updated jobs housing nexus program for San Francisco As such, the analysis focuses on the 
quantifiable linkages among buildings, employees, households, income distribution and housing 
demand by affbrdabiliry level. In the preparation of this analysis, there has been a clear intention to use 
conservative assumptions throughout, even though less conservative relationships might also be 
supportable 

Following are some of the conservative assumptions of this analysis where less conservative 
approaches are also viable 

■ The demand for new housing resulting from commercial development depends in pan 
on the number of workers drawn to the new development who do not already live in 
San Francisco The formula for new housing demand must exclude workers that will 
commute from outside of San Francisco The analysis applies the current ratio 
between workers who live inside and outside San Francisco This ratio is also the 
projected relationship used by ABAG — 45% of new workers will live outside San 
Francisco This ratio is already a reflection of the high cost of housing in San 
Francisco It certainly can be argued that if more housing were available at rents and 
prices affordable to San Francisco's lower paid workers, then less than 45% would 
choose to commute from other counties, and the number of workers seeking housing 
in San Francisco would increase. In fact, there is solid evidence that lowerpaid 
workers already commute from outside San Francisco less than the average for all 
workers citywide. As a result, the analysis understates the additional demand for 
affordable housing created by new commercial development 

■ Assumptions for the income of workers drawn to new development are based on the 
official HUD income statistics for a three county area inclusive of Marin and San 
Mateo Counties. The Census indicates that incomes in San Francisco are significantly 
lower than the three county average. As a result, the gaps between income and 
affordability of housing are understated. 

■ Only direct employees are counted in the analysis However, many indirect employees 
are drawn to each new workplace. For example, in an office building, indirect 
employees include janitors, window washers, landscape maintenance, delivery 
personnel, and a whole range of others These workers also tend to be at the lower 
end of the earnings range. Accordingly, the analysis understates the demand for new 
affordable housing. 



■ The methodology for adjusting worker income into multiple earner households 
essentially removes most double income household from the lower income strata (by 
assuming the multiple incomes place the household in the middle and upper income 
categories.) 

■ Employment growth in office and other commercial buildings is discounted to adjust 
for job losses in the industrial sector. However, ABAG and other planners project no 
further declines in industrial employment. 

■ A small two person household is used as the average size warranting assistance. As a 
matter of policy, much housing assistance in directed toward larger households. (The 
cost of assisting larger households is greater than the cost of assisting smaller 
households.) 

Less conservative assumptions would result in higher jobs housing nexus costs. Also, as a result of 
these and other conservative aspects of the analysis, this report should be used with caution as a source 
of information or basis for other policy programs. 



INTRODUCTION 



The following report is an analysis of the relationship between jobs and housing demand in the City of 
San Francisco, prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. for the City and County of San Francisco. 
The report has been prepared pursuant to Ordinance 120-96, which extended the duration of the Office 
Affordable Housing Production Program, and authorized an expenditure for studies to update and 
expand the existing program. 

Historic Context 

In 1985 the City and County of San Francisco adopted Section 3 13 of the San Francisco City Planning 
Code which established the Office Affordable Housing Production Program (OAHHP). This program, 
which is a generic housing linkage or nexus program, linked the development of office buildings to the 
demand for affordable housing, by requiring developers to either build affordable housing or pay an in- 
lieu fee. The relationship between office development and housing requirement was analyzed in the 
1984 study by Recht Hausrath & Associates, entitled Summary of the Economic Basis for an Office 
Housing Production Program. The program has been in place continually since its adoption. By 
1994, 1,462 housing units have been built by developers as part of the program and $28 million has 
been paid in in-lieu contributions to the program. With the fees, the OAHHP program combined with 
other government financing resources has produced 4,665 units. 

The ordinance was amended in 1990 to make a number of adjustments to the program and to extend 
the program for four years until August 1994. The March '96 ordinance reenacted the program and 
called for a new economic study to support a new ordinance for an updated and expanded program. 
This study provides the basis for a new program as required by the ordinance. 

The purpose of the study is to update and reanalyze the economic linkages because the original study is 
now 13 years old, and to insure that the study meets current legal requirements, including AB 1600, 
which amended the California Code, and several U.S. and California Supreme Court rulings affecting 
mitigations and fees imposed on development projects. In addition, a purpose of the study is to 
explore linkages for an expanded and revised program overall. 

Updated and Expanded Program Parameters 

The original OAHHP program applied only to office projects of 50,000 square feet or more in the 
downtown area. The 1990 amendment reduced the threshold size to 25,000 square feet, clarified 
the target income levels, and made certain other adjustments. 



The Planning Department's Request for Proposal for a new study specifies additional building 
types (or "land use activities") to be added to the analysis for consideration in the expanded 
program The building types or land use activities addressed in this analysis include 

Office 

Retail and Entertainment 

Hotel 

Medical Related 

Cultural and Institutional 

Research and Development (R&D) 

The original 1984 study focused on the downtown area. This nexus analysis addresses the jobs 
housing relationships in the City overall without specific reference to the downtown. Other 
features of the earlier ordinances are subject to revaluation as part of thus update program as 
well. 

Report Organization 

The report is organized into four sections as follows 

■ Section I - presents a summary discussion of the nexus concept, the legal basis, 
and some of the key issues surrounding nexus analysis for jobs and housing 
relationships. 

■ Section II - is a macro economic evaluation of jobs and housing growth in San 
Francisco, both historic and projected 

■ Section III - is a micro economic analysis of the jobs and housing relationships 
associated with individual prototype buildings for the six building types now under 
consideration. The section concludes with a determination of the number of 
moderate, low and very low income households associated with each type of 
building. 

■ Section IV- summarizes the affordability gap analysis and the dollar cost of the 
delivering affordable housing to each type of building This is the "Total Linkage 
Cost " 

Appendices contain additional information on data sources and assumption used in the analysis. 



Data Sources and Qualifications 



The analyses in this report have been prepared using the best and most recent data available 
Local data, such as the City's Citywide Travel Behavior Study, was utilized wherever possible. 
Other sources -such as the U. S. Census and the State of California Employment Development 
Department publications were used extensively. While we believe all the sources of data are 
sufficiently accurate for the purposes of this analysis, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. Keyser 
Marston Associates, Inc. assumes no liability for information from these other sources. 



SECTION!: THE NEXUS CONCEPT AND MAJOR ISSUES 



Introduction 

This section outlines the nexus concept and some of the key issues surrounding the placement of a 
burden on non-residential construction to increase the supply of affordable housing in San Francisco. 
The jobs housing nexus program has been in effect in San Francisco since 1985. This nexus analysis 
provides the economic justification for continuing the program which requires developers of major 
office projects to either construct affordable housing or contribute to a fund administered by the 
Mayor's Office of Housing which assists in the development of affordable housing. In addition, this 
nexus analysis addresses the following other types of buildings or land use activities: 

Retail 

Entertainment 

Hotel 

Research and Development 

Medical Related 

Cultural and Institutional 

The affordable housing program in San Francisco has sought to meet the housing needs of households 
at the moderate income level (up to 120% of median income), and all the categories of household 
income at less than median. Housing in San Francisco is so expensive that even moderate income 
households cannot afford the majority of housing available in the City. 

The nexus analysis and discussion focuses on the relationships among development, growth, 
employment, income and demand for housing. The analysis yields a causal connection between new 
construction of these building types and the need for additional affordable housing a connection that is 
quantified both in terms of number of units and in terms of subsidy assistance needs. The connections 
are related back to the size or square foot area of the newly constructed building. 

This analysis and the nexus burden established by the analysis do not address existing housing problems 
and needs; the analysis only address new demands for affordable housing associated with the 
construction of new workplaces. The analysis also should not be construed to suggest that 
development and its relationships are the only cause of housing affordability problems; the causes are 
many and complex. Finally, this analysis does not make the case that the development community 
should bear the full cost of addressing affordability problems; this program is but one component of a 
broad and comprehensive program entailing other locally generated funds as well as funds from the 
state and federal governments. 



The Legal Basis and Context 

Since the San Francisco OAHHP Program was enacted in 1985, there have been several US and 
California Supreme Court cases and State of California statutes affecting what local jurisdictions must 
demonstrate when imposing impact fees on development projects. The most important U S 
Supreme Court cases affecting fees and mitigation measures are the Nollarx v. California Coastal 
Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard (Oregon) In CaJifornia Ehrlich v. City of Culver City is 
also a significant precedent The rulings on these cases help clarify what governments must find 
in the way of the nature of the relationship between the problem to be mitigated and the action 
contributing to the problem Following the Nollan decision in 1987, the California legislature 
enacted AB 1600 which requires local agencies proposing to impose a fee on a development 
project to identify the purpose of the fee, the use of the fee, and to determine that there is a 
reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the development project on which the fee is 
imposed The local agency must also insure that there is a reasonable relationship between the 
amount of the fee and the cost of mitigating the problem that the fee is addressing Studies by 
local governments designed to carry out the intent of the Nollan decision and AB 1600 are 
referred to as "nexus studies " This report is the nexus study for a revised and updated San 
Francisco OAHHP program 

One court case that involved housing linkage fees was Commercial Builders of Northern 
California v. City of Sacramento. The commerciaJ builders of Sacramento sued the City 
following the City's adoption of a housing linkage fee. Both the US District Court and the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the City of Sacramento and rejected the builders' petition. 
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to hear the case, letting stand the lower court's 
opinion. The authors of this nexus study were the authors of the Sacramento study. 

/. The Nexus Methodology 

This section sets forth the basics of the nexus concept and methodology As with the existing OAHHP 
in San Francisco which was supported by an analysis by Recht Hausrath & Associates in a 1984 
document entitled Summary of the Economic Basis for an Office Housing Production Program, this 
analysis links new commercial buildings (or other workplaces) with new workers in the City, these 
workers demand additional housing in the City, a portion of which needs to be affordable to the low 
and moderate income levels of the workers. 

This report contains a Macro Economic Analysis outlining the past and projected relationships between 
construction, employment and housing in San Francisco and also a Micro Economic Analysis which 
demonstrates the linkages associated with a single building. To illustrate the nexus, very simply, we 
can walk through the major calculations of a building. We begin by assuming a prototypical 100,000 
sq ft. building and then make the calculations as follows: 



■ We estimate the total number of employees working in the building based on average 
employment density experience. 

■ We use occupation and income information for typical job types in the building to 
calculate how many of those jobs pay at very low, low, and median income levels. 

■ We know from the Census that most of these lower income employees are members of 
households where more than one person is employed; we use various factors to 
calculate the number of low income households represented. 

■ We then make a number of adjustments to linked households, most of which are drawn 
from the Macro Economic Analysis, such as an adjustment for people who work at 
jobs in new San Francisco buildings but will live outside of the City, and an adjustment 
to recognize declining sectors of the San Francisco economy in which jobs are lost. 

■ Finally, we conclude on the numbers of low and moderate income households 
associated with the building and divide by 100,000 square feet to arrive at coefficients 
of housing units per square foot of building area. In the last step, we multiply the 
number of households per square foot by the costs of delivering moderate and lower 
income affordable housing units. 

The factors and relationships utilized in the analysis reflect long term average conditions. Short term 
conditions due to the recession are not an appropriate basis for establishing a fee which is a one time 
exaction to mitigate a condition over the life of the building. Causation and other issues are discussed 
below. 

The Relationship Between Job Growth and Population Growth 

The social issue driving this analysis is growth in new moderate and lower income households. New 
population growth in most U.S. regions occurs primarily as a result of growth in jobs. Over the long 
term, the vast majority of growth in the State of California and its sub-regions is job driven. The arrival 
of new population creates a new "secondary" demand for jobs in retail outlets and services which 
follow. Growth in the greater Bay Area region is predominantly job driven. Most people coming to 
the region would not come to the area if they could not expect to find a job. If bom in the Bay Area, 
people would not stay without jobs. This is the long-term pattern. In the short-term, economic cycles 
and other factors can result in population growth without jobs tc support the growth. If an economic 
region in the US dees not maintain job growth, there is an out-migration to regions where job growth 
is occurring. Many cities in the Midwest are examples. 

At the lower income levels, relocation and migration are particularly job driven. No housing is 
affordable to middle and lower income groups without jobs (or without public assistance). 



The Relationship Between Construction and Job Growth 

Once it is understood that population growth, especially low income population, is predominantly job 
driven in the greater Bay Area region, the question arises as to the cause of employment growth itself 

Employment growth does not have "one cause " Many factors underlie the reasons for growth in 
employment in a given region, these factors are complex, interrelated, and often associated with forces 
at the national or even international level. The nexus argument does not make the case that the 
construction of new buildings is solely responsible for growth However, especially in the Bay Area 
region, new construction is uniquely important, first, as one of a number of parallel factors contributing 
to growth, and second, as a unique and essential condition precedent to growth. 

As to the first, construction itself encourages growth. When the state economy is growing, the most 
rapidly growing areas in the state are those where new construction is vigorous as a vital industry In 
regions such as the Bay Area where multiple forces of growth exist, the political and regulatory 
environment often join forces with the development industry to attract growth by providing new work 
spaces, particularly those of a speculative nature The development industry frequently serves as a 
proactive force inducing growth to occur or be attracted to specific geographic areas or jurisdictions 

Second, commercial/industrial buildings bear a special relationship to growth, different from other 
parallel causes, in that buildings are a condition precedent to growth. Job growth does not occur in 
modem service economies without buildings to house new workers Unlike other factors that are 
responsible for growth, buildings play the additional unique role that growth cannot occur without 
them. 

Addressing the Housing Needs of a New Population vs. the Existing Population 

The City and County of San Francisco has clearly documented that the housing needs of a substantial 
portion of the existing moderate and lower income families are not being met. This existing housing 
shortage, especially at the very low, low, and moderate income levels, is manifested in numerous ways 
such as payment of far more than the percentage of income for housing set forth in federal and state 
guidelines, overcrowding and other factors which are extensively documented by the City's Residence 
Element of the General Plan and other reports. 

This nexus study does not address the housing problems of the existing population. Rather, the study 
focuses exclusively on documenting and quantifying the housing needs of new households where a 
member works in a new office building or other type of workplace. 

This analysis also assumes that new housing affordable to moderate and lower income households is 
not being added to the supply in sufficient quantity If this were not the case and significant numbers of 
units were being added to the supply to accommodate the same income groups as addressed by the fee, 
then an adjustment would be in order If San Francisco were to be experiencing significant vacancy 



levels in residential units, particularly units affordable to lower income households, then the need for 
the units would require reexamination. Even during the recession, however, vacancy levels in 
residential units have not exceeded 6% in the City overall. 

Other Underlying Assumptions 

Substitution Factor 

It is obvious that any given new building may be occupied partly, or even perhaps totally, by employees 
relocating from elsewhere in the City. Buildings are often leased entirely to firms relocating from other 
buildings in the same jurisdiction. However, when a firm relocates to a new building from elsewhere in 
San Francisco, there is a space in an existing building which is vacated and released to another firm. 
That building in rum may be filled by some combination of newcomers to the area and existing 
residents. Somewhere in the chain there are jobs new in San Francisco. Except in the case of 
demolition of a building, which is addressed in the ordinance, space for employees does not disappear. 
The net effect is that new buildings bring in new employees, although not necessarily inside of the new 
buildings themselves. 

Indirect Employment and Multipliers 

The Macro Economic Nexus Analysis, which examines prototype buildings, addresses direct "inside" 
employment only. In the case of the office building, for example, direct employment covers the various 
managerial, professional and clerical people that work in the building; it does not include the janitorial 
workers, the window washers, the security guards, the delivery services, the landscape maintenance 
workers, and the many others that are associated with the normal functioning of an office building. 
These indirect employees tend to be the many service workers at the lower end of the pay scale. No 
good data sources were located that deal with indirect employees in various type buildings. If one 
thinks about who the lowest income workers are, one can observe that lower income workers include 
construction laborers, transportation workers, and a whole host of service workers who do not work in 
any type of building as regular employees but whose jobs are associated with such structures. In other 
words, any analysis that ties lower income housing to the number of workers inside buildings will 
continue to understate the demand. Thus, confining the analysis to the direct employees does not 
address all the low income workers associated with each land use (or type of buildings) and 
significantly understates the impacts. 

An informal survey of office buildings suggests that the number of employees at the lower end of the 
income range would be at least 10% higher with the inclusion of indirect employees. 

If the door were open to the indirect employees, one could take the analysis further and deal with the 
question of multipliers Multipliers refers to the concept that the income generated by certain types of 
jobs recycles through the economy resulting in additional jobs. For purposes of producing a 
conservative nexus amount, this study omits such multiplier effects. 



Special Adjustments in the San Francisco Analysis 

There are several special adjustments in the analysis to take into account worker households associated 
with new commercial buildings that do not equate to new housing demand Adjustments of thjs nature 
include the fact that not alJ worker households will elect to live in San Francisco and will prefer to 
commute, a recognition that some sectors of the San Francisco economy are declining such that not all 
workers are net new workers, and changes in labor force participation. 

Discount for Increase in Labor Force Participation 

The increase in labor force participation, primarily among women, that occurred during the 1960's, 
1970's and 1980's was associated with a significant portion of total job growth. As a result, a 
significant number of new workers already had local housing, thus reducing demand for housing 
associated with job growth In the 1990's, however, labor force participation rates have stabilized, and 
may have even peaked and are now declining slightly For every person of labor force age that enters 
the labor force, another leaves As such, an adjustment for increase in labor force participation is no 
longer warranted in a nexus analysis 

Discount for Employees that will Live Outside San Francisco 

The analysis makes an adjustment for the fact that not all of those who work in San Francisco would 
elect to live in San Francisco even if housing were affordable At the current time, approximately 55% 
of those who work in San Francisco also live there. This percentage decreased significantly in the 
1970's decade when the 1970 ratio of 62 6% of workers living in the City dropped to 56% by the end 
of the decade During the 1980's decade, however, there was very little change and both the City and 
the ABAG/MTC planners anticipate this ratio to remain at approximately 55% looking ahead to at 
least 2010. The Citywide Travel Behavior Study identified a slightly lower level of San Francisco 
workers who also live in the City, at 50 4% based on its survey. 

For purposes of the analysis, 55% of the housing demand associated with the workspace is utilized to 
identify the development project's housing burden. 

At this outset, it should be noted that 45% share of San Francisco workers commute from residences in 
other counties is already a reflection of the affordability conditions in the City More workers would 
live in the City were more affordable housing available Even a recent San Francisco Examiner poll 
found that San Francisco, over and above any other Bay Area county, is where more people would live 
if they could. 

Use of 55% is an extremely conservative approach and it is arguable that no discount should be made 
at all Subsidized housing opportunities are in short supply, if housing were built for all new moderate 
and low income employees, 45% would not remain vacant If such housing were offered with a 
priority given to households with members employed in the City, most would be taken. This is all that 



the nexus requires; the statutory and constitutional nexus standard mandates that the housing units built 
with the funds contributed by commercial structures are reasonably available, from a regulatory and 
practical perspective, to the workers in those structures. Most non-resident workers, especially low 
paid workers, would live closer to their jobs if they had the opportunity to do so, but instead are 
required to commute long distances primarily for economic reasons. Given this shortage of subsidized 
units and commute-driven impetus to live close to jobs, this study could reasonably have assumed that 
a far higher percentage of the units offered would be occupied or occupiable by workers in the 
structures contributing the fees. 

Discount for Declining Industries 

In economies where there are long term structural changes occurring due to the decline of one or more 
industries or sectors, it is appropriate to recognize that all new jobs may not be net new jobs. In some 
California jurisdictions, there are major changes occurring due to the decline in federal aerospace and 
defense spending; in others, military base closures are having a major impact. In San Francisco, there 
has been major long term economic decline in the industrial land use activity sectors. The Standard 
Industrial Classification categories most affected are manufacturing activities, transportation, 
communications and utilities, and wholesale trade To the layman, the decline is visible in the declining 
activity of the Port of San Francisco, the exodus of many types of manufacturing, and the large 
inventory of warehouse type structures that are either vacant or being converted to other types of uses. 

An adjustment to recognize declining industries is important in a nexus analysis because new jobs 
added in office, retail and other type spaces are, to some extent, replacement of jobs lost in these 
industrial land use categories. If an underlying premise of a jobs housing nexus is labor force mobility 
— i.e., workers are attracted to areas where jobs are made available, in part through the delivery of 
work spaces, then it must also be recognized that loss of jobs means workers either leave the area or 
become employed in another activity. In either case, an adjustment to housing demand is warranted 
because either the worker leaves San Francisco and makes his/her housing available to others or is re- 
employed but already has housing. 

In San Francisco, the loss of industrial jobs in relation to increase in other types of jobs has at 
times been substantial. During the 1980's, there was 0.6 to 0.7 of an industrial job lost for every 
job gained in other industries. Over a 22 year period from 1972 to 1994, the relationship was 
closer to 0.25 jobs lost for every gain. It is only the future relationship that should be of relevance 
to a nexus analysis, but of course views of the future vary depending on the source. The 
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) planning agency forecasts .10 further decline in 
industrial employment; other local planners and analysts believe the decline will continue To be 
conservative, this analysis incorporates the long-term historic relationship of 0.25 jobs lost for 
every new one gained in office, retail and other employment. 



It is not appropriate for a nexus analysis to take into account other changes associated with the 
decline in industrial jobs. For example, many workers formerly employed in industrial activities are 
forced to take new jobs in retail and services where compensation and benefits represent a loss of 
income from their former work. While this may be a legitimate concern for public policy, 
responsibility can not be assigned to the development of office and other types of buildings 

Differences in the 1984 and 1997 OAHHP Analyses 

The 1984 analysis by Recht Hausrath Associates (RHA) and this Keyser Marston Associates 
(KMA) analysis employ the same conceptual logic in the linkages from buildings to jobs to 
housing units and fee amounts. However, the methodological steps to make the linkages have 
some differences and the factors used to make the adjustments have been updated based on new 
information The major difference in methodology is in the approach to income distribution of 
workers and housing demand Differences in adjustment factors include the commute 
relationships, the number of workers per household and the affordability gaps. All in all, 
however, the similarity in logic and bottom line conclusions are more important than the 
differences. The RHA analysis concludes that each square foot of office space is linked to the 
demand for 000386 affordable housing units, the KMA analysis places the linkage at 000517 
housing units per square foot. The fee amount difference is largely attributable to the affordability 
gap difference — or the level of subsidy required to produce a housing unit at each affordability 
level. 

As noted in the Introduction, the earlier analysis examined only office buildings and focused on 
the downtown. This analysis examines six building types on a citywide basis. 

Qualifiers to the Analysis 

The analysis presented in this report has been based on readily available information The 1990 US 
Census was frequently utilized The California State Employment Development Department (EDD) 
and County Business Patterns were principal sources Local data was taken into account wherever 
available. The appendix section presents a full documentation of sources and data utilized. 

It should be recognized that any analysis of this nature, no matter how in-depth, contains a great many 
numbers and judgments relating to them. It will always be possible to take issue with a specific 
number. We do not believe, however, that adjusting one or several individual numbers would 
fundamentally alter the conclusions of the analysis. 



< 



« 



SECTION \l MACRO ECONOMIC JOBS HOUSING ANALYSIS | 



This section examines the history of building construction, employment growth and affordable 
housing production in San Francisco in the past and looking ahead. The relationships in San 
Francisco that underlie the jobs housing linkage are examined in detail and the overall experience 
with the relationship between construction and employment growth are reviewed to establish the 
nexus. The history of housing production, and particularly affordable housing production to keep 
up with the demand generated by new workers is also examined. 

This section also contains a projection of jobs and dwelling units as prepared by local planning 
agencies and the City to reflect the many large scale projects — mainly proposed redevelopment 
projects and military base conversions — in planning at this time. These projections confirm that 
affordable housing will not be produced at a pace sufficient to meet the demand generated by 
employment growth, a condition needing mitigation in the decades ahead. It must be emphasized, 
however, that the nexus relationships as established in this analysis, are not contingent upon a 
specific projected level of employment growth being realized. The relationships linking 
construction, employment, and affordable housing are critical to the nexus, but the specific 
projected levels of growth are not. 

A. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY AND TRENDS 

1. Total Employment Growth in San Francisco 

Employment data is collected primarily by the State Department of Employment Development 
(EDD) and also by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Association of Bay Area 
Governments (ABAG) utilizes both these sources to develop total figures for the decade and mid- 
decade and develops projections out approximately 20 years. ABAG is the most widely used data 
base by local planning agencies. 

According to ABAG, employment growth in the City of San Francisco during the 1980 decade 
registered an increase of 14,440 jobs. Total employment, however, declined during the early 
1990's with the California recession and it is expected that most of the employment growth in the 
late 1990's will be needed to return to the 1990 level. ABAG historic information and estimates 
are: 



1980 


552,200 


1990 


566,640 


1995 


534,610 


2000 


567,920 



The above ABAG estimates are from the ABAG 96 projection series which was prepared in mid 
1995. More recent information suggests that when the ABAG 98 series is published in late 1997, 
that the 1995 figure will be adjusted upward slightly and that the year 2000 figure will also be 
increased, suggesting a return to the 1990 level of total employment in the late 1990's Because 
of the Recession, the historic period, from 1980 to 1990 is useful to examine as a growth period 
and the period from 1990 to 2000 as a period of recession and recovery 

2. Employment by Growth Sector 

Examination of total employment obscures the dynamics and shifts that have occurred within 
individual sectors of the San Francisco economy Some industries in San Francisco have been 
experiencing a long term decline while others have been expanding, but examination of only totals 
does not allow an understanding of these change: In order to examine the individual industries 
associated with the nexus program, KMA obtained an unpublished annual series of data from 
ABAG This series enables an aggregation of employment subcategories by building type This 
series, which provides annual data from 1972 to 1994 based on County Business Patterns 
reporting, has an additional benefit of being more complete than other published surveys It 
includes estimates of self-employed, contract employees, and others not covered in the "wage and 
salary" series. This series is presented in Appendix A. 

Of particular interest is a breakdown of the Services industry, which is the largest and most 
rapidly growing of all the employment "industries" or Standard Industrial Categories (SIC's) 
Services now represent over 45% of total non-governmental employment and cover a range of 
professional and business services, which are predominantly office users, medical services, the 
hotel and lodging sector, an array of personal (beauty and barber, etc ) and repair services which 
mostly operate out of retail type spaces, plus others of a more miscellaneous nature (like 
veterinary medical, funeral parlors, etc.). 

KMA has reorganized the ABAG data series by building type or "land use activity," using the 
same reclassifications as the Planning Department uses in its Commerce and Industry reporting, 
but with the advantage of the more complete data series, as indicated previously. 

Office Employment 

Office space workers are predominantly comprised of the SIC grouping of Finance Insurance and 
Real Estate (FIRE) and subsets of the Services grouping — business services, legal services, 
engineering and management, and some others In 1972, there were roughly 75,000 employees in 
the FIRE categories and 51,000 in the services subsets. By 1994, the services group had grown 
to over 135,000 employees and the FIRE to 86,000 employees, quite shifting the balance from 
60% FIRE 40% Services to 40% FIRE 60% services. This was due to both the rapid growth in 
some of the service sectors such as legal, which went from 4,428 persons in 1972 to a peak of 
over 20,000 persons in 1990 and 1991, and business services which roughly doubled, and to some 
major changes in the FIRE categories The financial institutions in particular have seen both 



major growth over the period and some major losses in San Francisco due to mergers and/or 
relocations of back office functions to suburban locations. The insurance sector has experienced 
similar transfers out of the City while other sectors of FIRE have experienced increases such as 
security and commodity brokers. 

In addition to FERE and the Services subsectors, there is significant office use in San Francisco by 
the management and administrative functions of companies in other classifications such as 
manufacturing (eg., Foremost McKesson, Levi Strauss), retail (e.g., The Gap or Williams 
Sonoma), and Transportation Communications and Utilities (e.g., PG&E, Southern Pacific). 
Many of the companies in these industries have relocated functions from San Francisco over the 
past two decades. On the other hand, industries that have not traditionally been users of office 
space, such as Wholesale Trade, are now more and more becoming office space users. 
Unfortunately, there is no reliable data available to segregate the office functions from other 
functions in any of these categories. 

From the major office user categories that can be summarized, office employment grew from 
127,000jobsinthe 1972 to a high of 228,000 jobs in 1991. During the 1 980' s, the growth was 
from 171,000 to 216,000 jobs. 

Retail Employment 

Retail trade has represented an expanding employment base in San Francisco over the long term. 
In 1972 there were approximately 55,000 retail jobs in the City, a level which grew to over 
80,000 jobs in the 1989 and 1990 years. Retail, as an industry that is sensitive to recession, 
experienced jobs losses in the 1990's, as indicated by the 1994 reported level of 73,332 jobs. 

Hotel Employment 

Employment in hotels and other types of lodging has been growing over the long term in San 
Francisco. In 1972, there were approximately 10,000 hotel workers, and this level almost 
doubled at the peak in 1992. The 1990's recession has affected employment levels in hotels less 
than it has affected other sectors, such that the 1994 figures are only slightly lower than the 1990 
levels. 

Health Services Employment 

Health services has been a major growth industry in San Francisco as it has been on the national 
level. In 1972 there were a little over 17,000 persons employed in private sector health services 
in San Francisco. This level more than doubled by the end of the 1980's and employment peaked 
at a little over 39,000 employees in 1991, and has declined slightly since then. It is noted that 
these figures do not include government health services employees which accounts for substantial 
additional employment in San Francisco with San Francisco General Hospital and the U C 
Medical Center 



Industrial Employment 

Industrial as a "land use activity" is comprised of manufacturing, wholesale trade, and the 
activities of most of the transportation, communications and utilities (TCU) categories As a 
generality, all of these sectors have been experiencing long term decline for many decades in San 
Francisco. Manufacturing of both durable and non-durable goods has been leaving the City, the 
Port has been in decline, and the wholesale and warehousing subsectors have done much 
transferring out of San Francisco as well 

Total industrial employment was approximately 145,600 jobs in 1972 at the beginning of the time 
series, and has dropped to 99,400 jobs by 1994, or a decline of 45% The only significant 
exception to the decline has been apparel manufacturing which has grown from approximately 
8,000 jobs in 1972 to approximately 12,000 jobs in the 1990's Printing and publishing is another 
sizable category in San Francisco that has been fairly stable, or flat in employment, over the 23 
year period, as opposed to declining Overall, the industrial land use activity group has been 
losing 2, 100 jobs per year on average over the 22 year period 

Industrial Decline and Total Employment Growth 

By examining the growth by major building type or "land use activity," as presented in the historic if - 
series data, it is evident that growth in employment in some building types has been offset by 
losses in other building types Employment growth in office retail, hotel, and medical land use 
activities has been partially offset by losses in the industrial land use activity group To a far 
lesser extent there have also been job losses in the military component of San Francisco 
employment. 

From a nexus perspective, it is important to recognize these dynamics Every new office 
employee, for example, is not a net new employee in that there has been a fraction of a job lost in 
industrial employment If it is assumed as an operating premise that labor is mobile and relocates 
to where new employment is available, then it must also be assumed that when jobs are lost 
workers migrate out of the City in search of employment elsewhere — or seek reemployment in a 
new industry. In either case, housing of an industrial worker whose job ends is either made 
available for replacement employees or, in the case of the industrial worker who gets a new job in 
an office or retail store, there is no additional housing needed because the worker is already 
housed. 

An analysis of the 22 year time series indicates there were approximately 47,000 industrial jobs 
lost against gains of 188,000 in all other non-governmental categories. In other words, for every 
four jobs gained, a job was lost, or for every job gained there was a loss of 25 jobs During the 
1980's decade, the relationship was close to 1.67 or 0.6 of a job was lost for every new job that § 
was gained in the office, retail and other categories under review. 






The ABAG 96 published projection series reports similar declines of industrial employment at 
29,350 jobs during the 1980 to 1990 period. This series, which has more limited information on 
the services industries, suggests that gains in other categories were 43,750 for the same period, 
for a net gain of 14,440 jobs over the decade. This series would suggest that for every job gained 
in San Francisco in categories other than industrial, there was 0.67 jobs lost in industrial 
employment, similar to the other data series. 

2. Employment Growth and Building Construction 

An underlying premise of the jobs housing nexus and the placing of a burden on the construction 
of workplaces is that there is a direct relationship between the new workplaces and new 
employees. In this section some of these historic relationships are examined. The construction of 
office space in particular is closely monitored both by the real estate brokerage and development 
community and also by the Planning Department. Construction of other building types or "land 
use activities" is not similarly monitored and quantified. This examination of the relationship 
therefore focuses on office construction and office employment growth. 

Historic office construction by groupings of several years dating back to 1955 was assembled for 
review against the growth in office employment. Several real estate brokerage firms active in 
office space leasing have assembled thorough inventories of San Francisco office buildings that 
encompass all areas of the City and all types of office space. One firm with a comprehensive data 
base places the total inventory at over 65 million square feet of space, of which nearly 80% has 
been constructed since 1955. Some data bases are focusecronly on large buildings or the 
downtown; other data bases indicate even higher total inventories but also include retail and 
wholesale type space such as Showplace Square. The series indicated in Table II- 1 closely 
approximates the addition to the inventory as reported by the Planning Department since 1984 as 
part of the Downtown Plan Monitoring Program. 

Analysis of the total inventory is useful in that the occupancy level throughout the inventory can 
be taken into account. As large amounts of office space became available through new 
construction at the end of the 1980's and the Recession curtailed employment growth, vacancy 
levels grew to the 12% range. With the increase in occupied inventory, we can examine occupied 
space compared to employment growth and confirm that a clear relationship exists: 

1980-1990 

Occupied office space 
Occupied office space 
Increase in occupied space 



1990 


60.9 MSF 


1980 


40.0 MSF 




20.8 MSF 



Office employment 1991 228,000 jobs 

Office employment 1980 171. 000 jobs 

Increase in office employment 57,000 jobs 

Relationship of the increases 365 SF/employee 

1984-1994 

Relationship of the increases 305 SF/employee 

The amount of occupied office space per employee is similar to the office employment density 
identified by surveys Surveys of occupied buildings generally find office densities in the range of 
200 to 400 square feet per employee depending on the type activity Back office functions and 
government employees are usually at higher density (or lower square feet per employee) than 
corporate offices and professional firms Office density also varies with economic cycles Firms 
often reduce employment during a recession but may not move to smaller spaces; they just occupy 
the same space less densely The generally accepted average office density in San Francisco is 
275 square feet per employees for normal economic times This is the same density utilized in the 
1984 Recht Hausrath analysis 

An employment growth series analyzed against an office space growth series does not produce a 
perfect parallel relationship because: 

■ The EDD methodology and classification system for employment is not designed for 
relating employment to land use activity or building type A firm is classified by EDD 
based on its principal product or service A forest products or oil company with offices in 
San Francisco is a manufacturing firm, even though all San Francisco employees are office 
workers Many real estate and insurance brokers work out of retail spaces The examples 
of cross over are endless. 

■ There are many dynamics of change affecting how firms employ workers and conduct 
their business. As an example, what may appear to be a decline in one sector can be, in 
actuality, a shift from regular employees to temporary services and contract arrangements, 
all of which make the business services sector such a high growth sector 

■ Construction of new office buildings is carefully monitored and quantified. Removal of 
old space through demolition or conversion to other uses is not monitored at all Thus all 
office space construction is not net new space in a City such as San Francisco (A housing 
nexus ordinance such as the OAHHP ordinance includes an offset provision for demolition 
of old space which means the fee applies only to net new space.) 



■ Government employees often account for the occupancy of significant amounts of 

privately owned office space. There is no data base in San Francisco to readily adjust for 
government occupancy from one time period to another. 

Notwithstanding these difficulties, we can still say that the historic nexus between new 
construction and growth in office employment clearly exists and that there is a quantifiable nexus 
relationship over a long time frame that evens out business cycles. 

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF SAN FRANCISCO EMPLOYEES AND THEIR 
HOUSEHOLDS 

This section examines several key characteristics of employees in San Francisco and their 
households that are particularly relevant to the jobs affordable housing linkage. These are: the 
number of workers per household on average, income characteristics, and commute patterns. 
These characteristics become key factors in the micro economic analysis of the nexus between 
workspace buildings and affordable housing demand. 

1. Workers per Household 

The workers per household characteristic provides the link between number of employees and 
number of households associated with the employees, recognizing that most households today 
have more than one worker. 

The number of workers per household in a given geographic area is a function of household size, 
labor force participation rate, and employment availability. Historically, labor force participation 
has been rising since the early 1960's but appears to have leveled off in the 1990's. This has been 
true in San Francisco and throughout the country. Another long-term national trend that has also 
occurred in San Francisco is decreasing household size; however, in the 1980's in San Francisco 
there was an increase, largely a reflection of the immigrant population which is characterized by 
large families and extended households. Employed persons per household or workers per 
household has also increased during the 1980's in San Francisco as household size edged up and 
more household members went to work. According to ABAG, these factors are believed to have 
peaked in 1990 and are expected to decline slightly. Appendix B provides more detail and 
discussion of these relationships. 

For a nexus analysis, the characteristic of most direct interest is the number of workers per 
worker household. Worker households are distinguished from total households in that the 
universe of worker households does not include the elderly or households in which members are 
retired or do not work for other reasons. Student households and unemployed households on 
public assistance are excluded from worker households. 



In San Francisco in 1990, the number of workers per worker household was 1 56 In 1980 the ( 
relationship was 1 50, or slightly lower. ABAG predicts that this relationship will increase to 1 63 
by 2010 The number of workers per household in San Francisco is generally lower than in most 
suburban areas or large regional areas due primarily to the higher than average percentage of 
single person households 

2. Wages and Salaries of San Francisco Workers and Household Income 

The average wage or salary of San Francisco workers and the income of households formed by 
the 1 56 workers determines the household's ability to afford housing Both households and 
housing units are expressed in relation to median income for the metropolitan area 

The San Francisco City Planning Department Commerce and Industry Inventory reports 
information on gross wages and salaries paid to San Francisco workers, aggregated by land use 
activity The Inventory also reports the number of employees associated with the payments, to 
produce an average per employee as indicated below 



| SAN FRANCISCO WAGES BY LAND USE ACTTVTTY: 1995 




Office 


Retail 


Industrial 


Hotel 


Cultural/ 
Insutut 


Govern 


Other 


Total 


95' Wages (1) 


$8,530 


$1,628 


$4,873 


$418 


$3,481 


$1,546 


$47 


$20,431 


'95 
Employment 


167,379 


81,878 


1 14,007 


18.287 


109,546 


31.624 


1.383 


524,104 


Ave. Wage 


$50,962 


$19,883 


$42.-43 


$22,858 


$31,777 


$48,887 


$33,984 


$38,983 



Note: '95 Wages in current millions of dollars 
Source: San Francisco Planning Department, 1996 

Commerce and Industry Inventory, tables 3 1 1 and 5 1.1 

Note: This series of employment data differs from the more comprehensive series reviewed in 
the previous section which also includes self employed and others not covered in this 
series 



When workers in these activities form households, their income, either alone or in combination 
with other worker produces the household income. In addition, of course, there may be children 
and/or other household members who are not employed. According to the US Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) the median income of a four person household in San 
Francisco in 1997 was $64,400. This analysis focuses on three classifications of household 
income: moderate, low and very low income. 



The income limits for single person households, and four person households for San Francisco in 
1997 areas follows: 

1 Person 4 Persona 

Very low (50%) $22,550 $32,200 

Lower (70%) $31,450 $44,950 

Median (100%) $45,100 $64,'400 

Moderate (120%) $54,100 $77,300 

The above income levels are the official levels utilized by HUD and the State for all housing 
programs for the San Francisco Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA). The PMSA is 
comprised of three counties — San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo. Of these three counties, 
San Francisco has the lowest income structure. According to the 1990 Census, the 1989 median 
income of each counties was: 





Median Household 


Relationship 




Income 1989 Person 


To PMSA 


San Francisco 


$33,414 


81% 


Marin 


$48,544 


117% 


San Mateo 


$45,437 


110% 


PMSA 


. 




(All 3 Counties) 


$41,459 


100% 



In summary, the San Francisco median income is approximately 80% of the PMSA average. As a 
result, use of the official income level in this analysis overstates the income of San Francisco 
residents. 

3. Commute Relationships and Trends 

Section I provided a discussion of the role of the commute adjustment in a nexus analysis. This 
section provides a brief summary of trends and relationships, which is supported by further detail 
in Appendix C. The major relationship of interest in a nexus analysis is the share of San Francisco 
workers who also live in San Francisco. Where San Francisco residents work is not directly 
relevant; there is only an indirect relevance insofar as the popularity of San Francisco as a place to 
live drives up the cost of housing and contributes to the shortage of affordable housing. 

The two major sources of information on commute relationships are the U.S. Census, which is 
cross analyzed for the region by ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 
which works with census data. The other source is the 1992 Citywide Travel Behavior Survey 
(CBTS) which has far more extensive information on mode of transportation by land use activity 
and other data of interest to transportation planners. 



The proportion of San Francisco jobs held by local residents has been declining for decades, but 
not at an even rate. During the 1970's the drop was dramatic when at the beginning of the decade 
62.5% of the jobs were held by people who also lived in the City and at the end of the decade the 
share had dropped to 56% Analysis of where most of the new commuters were living by 1980 
suggests that the opening of the Transbay BART tube may have been an important factor in 
facilitating commute from the East Bay counties During the 1980's, however, the continued 
decline was very slight, or down to 55%. The 1992 CBTS study placed the relationship closer to 
50 2% of workers living in the City for the City overall 

ABAG/MTC believes the 55% relationship will be fairly stable projecting ahead In the year 2000 
ABAG/MTC projects that 54 34% of all workers in San Francisco will live there and in 2010 this 
relationship will be 55.13%. This analysis uses 55%. 

The CBTS and other survey data suggests that commute relationships in the downtown probably 
differ from the rest of the City, or the City as a whole (See Appendix C ) These surveys indicate 
that there is a higher probability that downtown, or C-3 District, workers will live outside San 
Francisco than workers elsewhere in the City. This indication also parallels other indications that 
office workers are more likely to live outside the City than workers in retail, service and hotel 
activities. All of these findings point to the high probability that less than 55% of the higher paid 
office workers live in the City while more than 55% of retail, hotel and workers in other land use 
activities live in the City In summary, use of the 55% commute adjustment is another 
conservative aspect of this analysis because more lower paid workers probably would work in the 
City were affordable housing available. 

C. HOUSING PRODUCTION AND CONDITIONS 

At the beginning of this section, growth in employment was examined and it was determined from 
the ABAG 96 published series that there were 14,440 jobs gained over the decade The 
unpublished more detailed series by land use activity indicated a substantially higher level of new 
employment. This section examines growth in housing units in San Francisco to meet the demand 
of new worker households. This section also provides a summary of some of the characteristics 
of the housing market that affect the ability of worker families to find housing in San Francisco 
Appendix D provides additional documentation and data series in support of this summarized 
information. 

1. Housing Production 

Annual dwelling unit construction in San Francisco from 1976 through 1995 tells us that 
approximately 26,600 units were completed over the 20 year period. After adjusting for units 
demolished, the annual net gain each year averaged 1,158 units. Compared to other jurisdictions, 
production in the City is fairly stable and does not vary widely from year to year The high year 
was 1989 when 2,345 new units were added and the low year was 1993 when only 288 new units 



were added, but in most years new unit production was far closer to the 1, 158 average. The 
1980's decade average was 1,3 12 units per year. 

The 1990's Recession has affected residential construction, resulting in an average of only 866 
units per year in the 1 99 1 through 1 995 years. 

As might be expected, the vast majority of units are multi-family (93%) and 67% of the units since 
1986 have been in buildings of 20 or more units. 

2. Production by Aflbrdability Level 

Since the early 1980's there has been a concerted effort on the part of the City to increase the 
production of housing affordable to moderate and lower income households. The OAHHP 
program which has produced both units and fees funds affordable housing projects. In addition, 
the Redevelopment Agency has produced a substantial number of new units. Federal and state 
programs, such the tax credit program, also play important roles. Since 1980, 5,477 units have 
been built as part of these programs. 

The 5,477 affordable units, or those with income restrictions, built in San Francisco since 1980 
represent approximately 27% of the total 20,610 units built over the period, with the other 73% 
"market rate." Of the income restricted affordable units, slightly over 50% have been targeted 
toward very low income households, or those at 50% of median income or less. Another 3 1% 
have been targeted to low income households, or up to 80% of median income, and the remaining 
16% have been targeted to moderate income or up to 120% of median income. 

As an annual average since 1980, 365 affordable units have been added each year. 

Of the market rate units, it must be clarified that many are built and priced in a manner affordable 
to moderate income households. A major share of rental units in particular are within the 
moderate affordability range, but without income restrictions there is no assurance that they will 
remain affordable. Very few for sale units, however, are able to built affordable to even moderate 
income households without public assistance in some form. 

3. Housing Conditions 

San Francisco repeatedly prevails in national surveys as one of the most expensive housing 
markets in the county The San Francisco housing market has long been characterized by very 
low vacancy rates, usually well under 5%, although in occasional Census years a supply of new 
unsold units will give the appearance of a higher rate. Any survey that is confined to units 
generally available for rent or sale (as opposed to vacation home, corporate units, etc.) indicates 
very low vacancy levels in San Francisco. 



Over the past 15 years, rent levels in San Francisco have gone through cycles of moderate 
increases followed by spurts of rapid increases. During the 1980's decade the Census reported a 
rise of 130% and a 1990 median rent of $613 per month Since 1990, however, the rise in rental 
rates has been steeper, with a 16% increase recorded by the Bay Area Council in the 1990 to 
1995 period, and the 1995 average rent for advertised vacant units at $1,075 per month 

Home prices in San Francisco have followed different cycles The Census recorded a 186% 
increase over the 1980 to 1990 decade, for a median value of $298,000 in 1990 Another source 
that tracks price movements annually has recorded decreases in values during the 1990's 
Recession, but increases in 1994 and 1995 to a median value of $313,000 per unit 

4. Affordability of Housing Supply 

As demonstrated in the next section in the Affordability Gap analysis, a med'an income household 
of two persons can afford as much as $1,248 per month in rent for a one bedroom urut, according 
to government housing affordability standards, or higher than the median rent in San Francisco 
according to the surveys. This same median income household, again using government 
standards, can afford an ownership unit costing up to $171,000 or far less than the median value 
of San Francisco for sale units The moderate income household at 120% of median can afford to 
spend $205,400 to own a unit, but this is still far short of the $3 13,000 median priced unit 

The cost of both rental and ownership housing increased at a more rapid rate than income during 
the 1980's decade. According to the 1980 and 1990 Census, both median rent and median 
monthly mortgage payment increased by a substantially greater amount than median income over 
the ten year period. 

Housing Cost vs. Income Growth in San Francisco 
Department of City Planning 

1980 1990 Increase 

Median Mortgage Cost $394 $1,168 296% 

Median Rent $285 $653 229% 

Median Household Income $15,866 $33,414 211% 
Source: 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census 

These changes made housing affordability an ever greater problem by the end of the 1980's than it 
was at the beginning of the decade. Since 1990, we know that the three county PMSA median 
income has increased from $45,000 to $64,400 in 1997 or by 41%, but all indications are that 
rents for available units (as opposed to rent controlled units in continued occupancy by the same 
tenant) have increased by at least the same percentage With for sale unit prices stable during the 



Recession, most likely there was some improvement in the affordability gap for ownership units 
during the first half of the 1990's. However, at the time of this writing in spring 1997, prices are 
increasing steeply again. 

D. EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS 

The jobs housing nexus relationship in support of a burden on new workspaces to contribute to 
new housing is based on best estimates of future trends and relationships in San Francisco. In this 
context, projections of employment and households are provided in this section. 

1. ABAG Employment Projection 

Two projection series are available at this time. The first is the ABAG 96 series, the most recent 
available during spring 1997, which is widely used by planning agencies throughout the Bay Area 
and in San Francisco. The ABAG 96 employment projections are: 



1990 


566,640 


1995 


534,610 


2000 


527,920 


2005 


600,130 


2010 


623,100 


2015 


638,670 


2000 - 2015 Total Increase 


70,750 


Annual Average 


4,720 



The total employment growth and annual average is indicated for the 2000 to 2015 period 
because the 1995 to 2000 period will produce no net increase in employment over the 1990 level. 

2. Cumulative Growth Forecast 

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has also prepared an alternative projection series that 
takes into account all the major projects in planning in San Francisco at this time. The projection 
was prepared for EIR purposes and, as such, starts with the premise that all the projects are 
implemented. This projection series, called the Cumulative Growth Forecast, was prepared under 
contract to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, working in close coordination with both 
Redevelopment Agency and Planning Department staff. Projections were independently prepared 
for each project area based on plans and input from project area staff. After assembling 
projections of development activity or employment for each area, KMA evaluated the cumulative 
activity from a market demand perspective to insure that the cumulative projections could meet a 
market capacity test. 



The projects and areas individually examined in the Cumulative Growth Forecast are: 

Transbay Terminal Redevelopment Survey Area 

Rincon Point South Beach Redevelopment Area and proposed amendments, wruch 
includes the Giants Ballpark 

Mission Bay North Redevelopment Survey Area - includes entertainment and 
residential 

Mission Bay South Redevelopment Survey Area - includes new UCSF campus, 
biotech industrial and residential, 

Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Survey Area - includes 49ers stadium and 
retail mall 

Mid Market Redevelopment Survey Area - residential, new retail complex using 
old Emporium building, etc. 

North of Market potential survey area 

All other existing Redevelopment Area current plans 

Other South of Market area not included above 

Financial Distinct 

Presidio 

Treasure Island 

Hunters Point Naval Shipyard 

A lesser level of analysis was conducted for the rest of the City. 






The Cumulative Growth Forecast was prepared only for the year 2015 The employment growth 
forecast is: 



1990 




566,600 (ABAG estimate) 


1995 




534,600 (ABAG estimate) 


2000 




568,000 (ABAG estimate) 


2015 




665,400 


2000- 


2015 Total 


97,400 


2000-2015 Annual 


6,490 



The Cumulative Growth Forecast in many respects serves as a "High Range" Projection in that it 
assumes the many projects in planning are implemented within a prescribed time frame (which is 
not necessarily that all projects are built out by 2015). The Cumulative Growth Forecast and the 
ABAG 96 series bracket the growth in the 2000 to 2015 time frame at 4,700 to 6,500 jobs per 
year on average over the period. 

3. Industrial Employment and Total Employment 

The analysis of employment growth during the 1980 decade found that employment increases 
were experienced in most categories and all "land use activities" — office, retail, etc. with the 
exception of industrial Using the ABAG detailed series (Appendix A) which enabled the 
aggregation by land use activity, we learned that for every job gained in there was an approximate 
25 jobs lost in the industrial land use activity over the 22 year time period. (Industrial land use 
activity includes the manufacturing, transportation, communications, and utilities, and wholesale 
trade sectors). Using the published ABAG 96 series, the industrial loss appears at nearly 
0.67 jobs lost in industrial for other jobs gained during the 1980's decade. 

The ABAG 96 series projection, however, anticipates that the industrial land use activity sectors 
that experienced so much decline during the 1980's decade will stabilize and in fact experience 
increases between 1995 and 2015. All three sectors — manufacturing, TCU and wholesale trade 
— will grow according to ABAG, resulting in no offset being required in other sectors during the 
projection period. In the Cumulative Growth Forecast work effort, in consultation with the 
Planning Department, we concluded that continued decline 'at a modest level of 1,000 jobs per 
year, or 20,000 more jobs will be lost in these industrial sectors through the forecast period. The 
loss of 1,000 jobs per year against gains of 7,490 jobs per year, resulting in 6,490 net new jobs 
per year, is a ratio of 0. 13 jobs lost for every job gained. 

To be conservative, this analysis incorporates the long term historic relationship of 0.25 jobs lost 
for every new one gained in office, retail, and other employment. 



4. Household Projections 

Household projections were developed as pan of both the ABAG 96 and the Cumulative Growth 
Forecast series. Household projections closely paraUel dwelling unit projections with a minor 
adjustment for vacancy The methodology for projection in both cases is anticipated dwelling unit 
construction given past trends and major planned projects The household projections for the two 
forecasts are 



Total Households 
San Francisco 



1990 

1995 

2000 

2005 

2010 

2015 

1995 - 201 " Annual Ave 

2000-2015 Annual Ave 



Cumulative 



ABAG 96 


Growth Forecast 


305,580 


305,580 


311,430 


311,430 


317,730 


317,730 


325,600 


N7A 


333,290 


N/A 


338,390 


343,620 


1,350 


1,610 


1,380 


1,730 



The Cumulative Growth Forecast includes the revised plans for Mission Bay and the many residential 
projects in the proposed redevelopment areas Nonetheless, the spread between the ABAG 96 
projection and the KN1A Cumulative Growth Forecast is about 300 households per year, the 
Cumulative Forecast being 19% higher than the ABAG projectioa 

It is recalled that the historic twenty year production of new dwelling units was in the range of 1 , 1 00 to 
1,300 units per year The City has a target production of 2,000 per year which would not be met with 
either projection 

5. Projected Employment Growth and Housing Demand 

The analysis of relationships among employees, workers per household, and where San Francisco 
workers live allows us to evaluate whether the projected housing supply will be sufficient to meet the 
demand of new San Francisco workers. The key issue for the Affordable Housing nexus program is 
whether affordable units will be in sufficient supply With the two sets of projections for future 
employment and housing growth, and based on affordability conditions and historic experience, we are 
able to draw conclusions on the need for linking new workspaces with a share of the responsibility for 
providing affordable housing. 



The ABAG 96 and Cumulative Growth Forecast project annual employment growth during the fifteen 
year period after the year 2000 in the range of 4,720 to 6,490 jobs per year. This projection 
incorporates any loss of employment in industrial land use activities; therefore, these increases are net 
new jobs. We can translate these new workers into new worker households using the 1.63 workers 
per worker relationship and then assign demand in San Francisco based on the 55% relationship. The 
resulting total housing demand in the City is: 



Cumulative 



ABAG 96 


Growth Forecast 


4,270 


6,490 


2,620 


3,980 


1,440 


2,190 


1,380 


1,730 


60 


460 



Projected Employee Housing Demand 

2000-2015 



New Employees Per Year 

New Employee Households @1.63 

New Employee Household Demand in San 
Francisco @55% 

Dwelling Unit Production (Supply) 

Excess of Demand over Supply 



This level demand generated by new employee households is compared to housing production 
projections at 1,380 units per year for the ABAG projection 1,730 units per year with the Cumulative 
Growth Forecast projection. In both projections, employee household demand will exceed projected 
dwelling unit production. Insufficient supply will result in increased rents and home prices, further 
exacerbating the inaffordability of San Francisco's housing supply. 

New employee household demand is not equivalent to total housing demand in San Francisco. The 
other major source of demand is households where one or more member works in other counties. In 
addition, there are new retirement households, new student households, and new second residence 
households. Total housing demand is significantly greater than demand from worker households alone. 

In summary, projected employment and housing supply indicate that supply will be insufficient to meet 
demand and cause the cost of housing to increase even further. With the OAHHP Program and other 
efforts by the City since the early 1980's, affordable units were produced at a rate of 365 units per year 
This rate of production will have to be substantially increased in the future or current conditions will 
worsen along with all the impacts related thereto — such as more overcrowding, more overpaying, and 
more workers will be forced to seek affordable housing outside the City and burden the transportation 
system. 



This section presents a summary of the analysis of the linkage between non-residential building types 
and the number of lower income households that will, on average, be associated with them. This 
section should not be read or reproduced without the narrative discussions presented in the previous 
sections. 

Analysis Approach and Framework 

The micro analysis establishes the jobs housing linicages for individual building types or "land use 
activities," using the relationships presented and discussed in the Macro Economic Jobs Housing 
Analysis for San Francisco overall. The sources used in this analysis are the same as the Macro 
analysis unless otherwise noted. 

The analysis approach is to examine the employment associated with the development of 100,000 
square foot building modules of six building types. Then through a series of linkage steps, the 
employees are converted to households and housing units in demand by afFordabilhy level. The 
findings are expressed in terms of numbers of households related to building area. In the final step we 
convert the numbers of households back to the per square foot level. 

The building types or "land use activities" addressed in the analysis are: 

Office 

Retail/Service 

Hotel 

Research and Development 

Cultural/Institutional 

Medical Related 

The analysis is conducted utilizing a computerized model that KMA has developed for application in 
several other jurisdictions for which the firm has conducted jobs housing nexus analyses. More 
information on the model and inputs is provided in Appendix G. 

Analysis Steps 

Tables 2 through 5 at the end of this section summarize the nexus analysis steps for six building types. 
Following is a expansion of each step of the analysis. 



Step 1 - Estimates of Total New Employees 

The first step identifies the totaJ number of direct employees who will work at or in the building type 
being analyzed. Employment densities for office, retail, hotel, and cultural/institutional, are based on 
ratios used by the City of San Francisco Planning Department in other contexts (primarily drawing 
from the 1988 Mission Bay EIR). The densities for these building types were reviewed with Planning 
Department staff as part of the Cumulative Growth Forecast work program 

The employment density for medical related uses was drawn from analysis of the University of 
California Medical Center (UCSF) new campus EIR and the Kaiser Permanente expansion EIR In 
addition, KMA has developed employment densiiy factors for hospitals and other medical facilities 
elsewhere. The employment density for Research and Development (R&D) is also based on KMA 
prior work in cities, such as Palo Alto, where R&D is a predominant land use activity and has been 
surveyed to determine employment density changing density patterns over time. 

See Sections I and II for major underlying assumptions. All density factors include a built-in 
adjustment for normal vacancy in the 5% range. Recessionary vacancies and lower intensity use of 
workspace buildings during a recession are short term conditions and not relevant in the housing 
demand analysis An affordable housing obligation is a one-ume measure which mitigates the impacts 
over the life of the building. 

In the office example, the 100,000 square foot building houses 364 employees, the R&D building 250 
employees, etc. 

Step 2 - Adjustment for Declining Industrial Employment 

This step adjusts for projected declining employment in industrial land use activity, particularly 
manufacturing, TCU (transportation, communication and utilities) and wholesale trade. As presented 
in Section n, these sectors have been in long term decline in San Francisco, where depending on the 
time frame, for every job gained in the office, retail, hotel and other land use activities, 25 to 67 jobs 
were lost in industrial land use activities. However, the projection by ABAG concludes that the decline 
will end and that employment in these industrial land use sectors will actually experience some minor 
increase in the decades ahead. Alternatively, KMA has projected a continued decline at a 13 ratio 
(See Section D). To be conservative in the analysis, however, an even greater discount of 25 is used. 

The adjustment is made to insure that only net new jobs to San Francisco are counted in the analysis. 
Replacement jobs do not require additional housing units. 

In the office building, the 364 employees are adjusted to 273 net new employees in San Francisco 



Step 3 - Estimate of Number of Households 

This step recognizes that there is frequently more than one employee per household and reduces the 
number of employees to the number of households. The 1990 U.S. Census figure for San Francisco of 
1 .63 employees per household was used. See Section H 

The number of employee households in our office building is 167. 

Step 4 • Breakdown of Employees by Occupation 

This step divides the employees representing new households into occupational groupings using 
industry by occupation matrices prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor and EDD. The 
occupational categories are Professional/Managerial, Technical/Sales, Gerical, Service, Craft and 
Operator/Laborer. "Industry" categories closely approximate the building types used in the analysis. 

The methodology of individually examining the occupational composition of each building type allows 
the nexus to take into account the employment differences among land use activities. 

Step 5 - Estimates of Employees Meeting the Lower Income Definitions 

In this step, occupation is translated to income distribution without consideration to household size 
which is accounted for in the next step. Therefore, the analysis identifies the number of employees who 
earn the qualifying amount for the largest size household, or $34,400 in the case of very low income 
households, and $46,000 in the case of low income households. Sources of information for this 
analysis step include wage data for the various occupations consistent with the building type (e.g., 
different types of clerical worker wages for the office category) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
and EDD listings. See Appendix E for more information. 

Step 6 - Estimate of Household Size Distribution 

In this step, household size distribution was sought in order to move from income distribution to the 
income and size combinations that meet the income definition established by HUD. Since household 
size varies with income, we used the closest US Census tally and calculated the size distribution for 
the three income categories (very low, low, and moderate). 

In San Francisco, the household size distribution is unusual (compared to the suburbs or large regions) 
in the extraordinary share of households that are single person households. San Francisco also has a 
disproportional share of very large households compared to a large region. 



Step 7 - Estimate of Households that meet HUD Size and Income Criteria 

In this step we had to buiJd a matrix of household size and income to establish probability factors for 
the two criteria in combination. For each occupational group a probability factor was calculated for 
each of HUD's income and household size levels. This step is performed for each occupational 
category and multiplied by the number of households. 

Step 8 — Adjustment to Eliminate Most Multiple Earner Households 

This last step makes an adjustment to eliminate, or reallocate to higher income groups, most of the 
households that have two or more earners, because these multiple earner households may have 
incomes that make them no longer qualify in the lower income categories. Based on data from the 
U.S. Census, we have calculated the number of multiple earner households that fall in each income 
category. From this data we were able to eliminate from the income category those multiple earner 
households with incomes in excess of the HUD limits. 

Step 9 - Adjustment to Discount for Non-Re si dent Worker 

Up to this point, the analysis has assumed all workers would live in San Francisco As Hisrnqs*d in the 
previous sections, it is assumed 55% of the employees will demand housing in San Francisco See 
Sections I and II. 

Analysis Conclusions 

The conclusions of the analysis for the six building types, each 100,000 sq.ft. in size, as presented in 
Tables 2 through 5 are summarized below (figures are rounded): 



• 





QfTi<;e 


Rettil 


Hotel 


Mtficil 


RAD 


Cultural/ 

la jti national 




Employees 


364 


286 


222 


333 


250 


113 




Net New Employee 
Households 


167 


131 


102 


153 


115 


61 




Demand in SF 


91 


72 


56 


84 


63 


34 




Above Mod. HH 


39 


27 


21 


37 


27 


15 




Moderate HH 
LowHH 
Very Low HH 


25 
16 

Li 


19 
16 
10 


15 

12 

8 


23 

15 

9 


17 
12 

7 


9 
6 

4 


% 


Subtotal 


52 


45 


35 


47 


36 


19 




Subtotal as % of All 
Employees 


14% 


16% 


16% 


14% 


14% 


17% 





When the lower income categories are joined with moderate income the differences in terms of share of 
all employees demanding housing in San Francisco evens out to the 14% to 17% range. 

The last table in this section presents these findings per square foot of building area. 



ie 



J* "*> £ 9 <"> T — ^ 



**£**** at 

j .*-, in m -i _ J. g 

o 



cj » m a n 



co ▼ o r> •- ▼ 



******* 3« 

N - O « « » o o 



fi 

3 1 



a 5 § 



m CO CN CM en O O 



Q S 6 S irt in 5 

* - M IV 



-1 <"> 

5 s 



agS oo«<n g 



******* * 



s? s 



?;", T s° £ 



* ^ / / * * j« 

jQ CO CO »■ CM CO O 



c I " 

~ fl CN 



S N N S O O «l K» 



******* 

a «i g t o o n 

CM CN * 



UJ 



I I 




CO £ 

■ i 

I I 

? s 

a 3 



<»> ■V i- <N CN OJ 

n rt rt oo co O) 
o o <o *- o o 



O r ifl (V N 



2 


13 

C 


5 


o 






3 


D 


o 


3 




to 




c 







a a i/i v n K) 
to co o t <o ao 
o d io *r o o 



(N n N N O Ifl 

oo o vo ^ ao r- 
o cn oo d CN Irt 



O V t*» CN 




— </> 

® 

rt" (0 _ 

1 2 g 

i 8 ® 

2 H O 



<s> 




o 




% 




.Q 
D 




8 




-J 


. 


s 




3 
a. 


V 

g 


c0 


(J 


o 


a 



< x 



=: 


3 


3 


^ 


■o 


u 


8 


c 

!T1 


X 


Li. 


B 


C 


o 


TO 


Z 


w 


5 


c 








■o 


c 


c 


3 


■ 


3 

o 
J) 


£ 
s 




•o 


Q 
o 


1 




a") 


c 




V 


j> 


E 


2 


ti! 


£ 


a 


5 


S 
<* 


$ 




(N l«) * Ifl (O 
> - (O Ul r— f>- 

o «~ <b «- cn 



v <a r- (O 

»- to o »- 

o od 10 - 



o v f"» r>» to i"» 
e » t * n n 
v *- o> a *- (N 



7 m <o 
*^ r»; oi 



i»- v 10 o f«- to 



r- 10 to to 

<- » to t-| 
ai oi T- in 



5 ^ 



S £ 



a> j, » e w 
2 i- O CO O 



c 8 

8 IA 

"2 o 

/i c 

o -o 

«? £ 

I s 

z to 

5 S 



'i § 

Q # 

2 S 

C — 

E 5 



2. a 
33 



8 ? 



(O (*• CM O i*. co 



O) e» i- *- CM CM 



(J S 









c co 








cr co 








•» > 








Q -J 








s I 




I 


CO 

Q 
_i 
O 

r 


13 

— ^ 

(0 >< 

LU 111 




Q 


LU 


3! z 




LU 

2 


CO 


t o 




u. 
O 


O 

r 






o 


g 

z 




o 

LU 

5 


> 

LL. 

i 

O 


£9 




O 
o 


> o 

H o 




z 


u. 


o to 




LU 


O 


< d 




h- 


LU 


LU Z 


in 

LU 
_1 

5 


2 
LU 

Q 

O 


CO 


CO < 

ii 


i— 


2 


LU 


_) CO 



co o> o) y— a> a> 



O CO CM V 
O) O -V T 



1 s 

Z CO 



8 CO 

« — 12 

§ 3 § 

£ 5 £ 

HO 



5 2 8. £ 
co u O O 



2. ^ 



^ 


-o 


c 


C 


a 


i 


o 

u 


E 


•ji 


» 




a 


O 
o 


* 




LO 




iO 


c 




D 


J) 


£ 


s 


~s> 


M 


3 





^ 


$ 



CO i- T 00 CN CO 



CO r>» CN O r» CO 
«- CO r- 



•«• r- *r *r o> co 
«— co ao ao *— d> 

6 f) r r N N 



* « 









w CO 








* > 








O d 






CO 


IS 

— > 3 




£ 


Q 




1 


O 

I 


CO >< 

LU LU 




Q 


LU 


Q. Z 




LU 

2 


CO 

3 


£o 




LL 


o 


11 

is 




C 


X 




* 

a 

CN 

LU 

5 


CD 

Z 
> 

LL 

i 

3 





O 
U 


> o 

h- O 




z 


LU 


O CO 




LU 


o 


< o 




H- 


LU 


LU Z 


10 
LU 


2 

LU 

Q 

5 


1- 


CO < 

3 X 

Q "" 


5 


CO 


5 ^ 


h- 


2 


LU 


_) CO 



CO <3) O) «- O) O 



IA S O (O 



CO m CO 

ca <n ^ 

r- CM CO 



I s 

Z CO 



if 

5 H O CO O 



i 2 



ex i= 
O O 



2. 3 



E 5 
3. o 



at 2 
Q < 
O CO 

o z 
r o 

LU £ 

2 W 

II 

OJ oj 



5 



CO < U. 



8 § 



en co 

o o 

§ § 

d d 



vn (\| ao 

lO N iO 
o «- — 



r>. 


n 


r»- 


o 


ID 


■* 






(N 


o 
o 


i § 


o 


o 


O 


d 


d 


d 




s 



SECTTONM TOTAL HOt^^l^KAGi COSTS 



This section takes the conclusions of the previous section on the number of households in the lower 
income categories associated with each building type that will demand housing in San Francisco and 
identifies the total cost of assistance required to make housing affordable. The previous section 
identified the number of households in the very low, low, and median income categories associated 
with each square foot of building area. 

A key component of the OAHPP analysis is the calculation of the size of the gap between what 
households can afford and the cost of producing additional housing in San Francisco. This analysis 
uses a relatively standard methodology to determine what households can afford, and compares that to 
the cost of providing additional housing. The analysis is conducted for various household sizes that 
meet HUD standards at very low, low, and moderate income criteria. Consideration is also given to 
the cost of producing both sales and rental housing. 

A. Income and Household Size Assumptions 

Income definitions for housing programs are established by HUD for varying household sizes, as 
presented in Section H For estimating the affordability gap, there is a need to match a household of 
each income level with a unit size and type of tenure according to governmental regulations and 
policies. 

In this analysis, the average income of the qualifying households in each category has been utilized. 
That is to say that while the upper limit of very low income households is 50% of median income, not 
all very low income households demanding housing will have incomes as high as 50% of median. 
Many will have an income level far lower. The average income of very low income households is more 
akin to 35% of median and therefore the 35% has been utilized in the analysis. 

An alternative policy position is available in making this analysis. One could run the analysis using the 
upper end of the income definition range. Using the upper end of the range has the effect of increasing 
the amount households can pay for housing and reducing the affordability gap. Some jurisdictions do 
calculate affordability gaps in this manner. 

Use of the average income for the San Francisco analysis justified, at least in part, to correct for the 
fact that the income structure in San Francisco is significantly lower than for the larger three county 
area for which incomes are analyzed annually and for which all federal and state housing assistance 
programs must be keyed to. As indicated in Section II, median income in San Francisco in 1990 was 
81% of the median income for the three county area 



Another policy choice is that of which household size to use in the analysis. The average number of 
persons per household citywide is 2 4 However the median household size in San Francisco is under 
2 persons per household (due to the disproportionate shares of total households at the very smalJ and 
very large ends of the household size range.) In this analysis, the two person household in a one 
bedroom unit is used as the average. As can be seen from Appendix F, the affordability gap increases 
with unit and household size, which is to say that use of the average household size at 2 4 would 
produce a higher affordability gap. 

For each income level, using the average income policy choice and the smaller household and unit size, 
the assumptions for analysis purposes are as follows: 

■ Very low income household - a two person household with an income at 35% of 
median or $18,000 in 1997, in a one bedroom apartment. 

■ Low income households - a two-person household with an income at 70% of median 
or S36.050 in 1997, in a one bedroom apartment. 

■ Moderate income household - a two person household with an income at median or 
$5 1,500 in 1997, in a one bedroom mulu-famiry ownership unit. 

Housing Expenditure 

Maximum monthly rent for various categories was calculated at 30% of monthly income, including the 
payment of utilities. A utility allowance of $40 for a one-bedroom unit is based on figures derived from 
the HUD Section 8 program. 

The maximum purchase price limit for for-sale housing is determined using the key assumption that 
33% of income can be devoted to housing expenses, including payment of mortgage, property taxes, 
insurance, mortgage insurance, and homeowner fees. A down payment of 5%, a 30 year loan at 8%, 
and homeowner expenses of $2,000 are appropriate according to input by the Mayor's Office of 
Housing and the Redevelopment Agency. 

Development Costs 

The cost of developing new residential units in San Francisco is high primarily due to high land 
costs and construction at higher density levels than suburban locations. Other factors that impact 
costs include labor, special code requirements, and fees. Costs were assembled for a range of unit 
sizes from studios to three bedroom units in prototypical woodframe three to four story 
configurations, and the minimum parking allowed by tne code. Costs also include indirect costs 
such as fees, construction finance, design and engineer. '.g. Sources of cost information include 
private sector developers, non-profit builders active in the City, and the Redevelopment Agency 
Housing development costs are intended as averages, and are, in fact, at the lower end of the 



average range. Occasionally projects are constructed at costs lower than the averages used in the 
analysis, but the survey of experience suggests that averages are at least as high as the levels used 
herein. 

For a prototypical one bedroom rental apartment, the total development cost is estimated at 
$137,500. The ownership unit costs slightly higher at $152,750. 

AfTordabiliry Gap 

The affordability gaps for a two person household are: 

■ $ 1 1 3, 845 at very low income for a one bedroom rental unit 

■ $48, 1 88 at low income for a one bedroom rental unit 

■ $ 1 0,600 at moderate income for a one bedroom ownership unit. 

Affordability gaps in San Francisco are among the highest in the nation, for a range of reasons that are 
well summarized in the City housing documents such as the Comprehensive Housing Affordability 
Strategy report. 

Total Linkage Costs 

The last step in the linkage fee analysis marries the findings on the numbers of very low, low and 
median income households associated with each type of work space building to the costs of delivering 
or subsidizing housing for mem in San Francisco. The rental affordability gap is applied to the very 
low and low income households, while the ownership gap is applied to the median income households. 
The per square foot housing demand factors for each income level, as presented at the end of 
Section in, are multiplied by the affordability gaps to produce the total linkage cost. 

Total Housing Ncius Cost fPcr Sq.Ft. Building Area) 





Very Low 


Low 


Moderate 






Income 


Income 


Income 


Total 


Office 


$12.19 


$7.86 


$2.62 


$22.67 


R&D 


7.43 


5 89 


1.78 


15 10 


Medical 


10.29 


7.16 


2.40 


19.85 


Cultural/ 


4.26 


3.12 


0.95 


833 


Institutional 










Retail 


11 52 


7.60 


2.02 


21.14 


Hotel 


947 


596 


1 56 


1699 



These costs quantify the total linkage between new workspace buildings and the demand for new 
affordable housing, expressing that connection in terms of cost per square foot of building area These 
total nexus costs represent the legal ceiling for potential fees: THE TOTAL NEXUS COSTS ARE 
NOT RECOMMENDED FEE LEVELS An appropriate fee range for San Francisco will be 
explored in the next section of the report. 

In establishing the total nexus cost, or maximum fee amount, it is noted that many conservative 
assumptions were employed in the analysis that result in a total nexus cost that is probably understated 
by a considerable amount. These conservative assumptions include 

■ The commute adjustment assumes that 45% of all employee households will demand 
housing outside of San Francisco even if units are made affordable 

■ The methodology for discounting double income households essentially removes most 
two income households from the lower income strata (by assuming the multiple 
incomes place the households in the middle and upper income categories) The high 
and growing number of single parent households probably results in more households 
in the lower income categories than indicated in the analysis. 

■ Using a two person household in a one bedroom unit produces a far lower affordability 
gap than a larger unit. As matter of policy, much housing assistance is directed toward 
building larger units, since the market is even less able to deliver larger units than 
smaller ones, and needs are most acute for larger households. 

■ Affordability gaps are low compared to the experience of many public agencies and 
non-profit groups struggling to produce housing in San Francisco. 

■ Only direct employees are counted in the analysis. Many indirect employees are also 
associated with each new workspace. Indirect employees in an office building, for 
example, include janitors, window washers, landscape maintenance people, delivery 
personnel, and a whole range of others. 

In summary, many less conservative assumptions could be made that would resuh in higher linkage 
costs than are concluded in this analysis. 






APPENDIX A; ABAG DETAILED HISTORICAL EMPLOYMENT SERIES 



This appendix provides a time series of employment data by major land use category. For each 
land use category the industries that predominately occupy that type of building space are 
included. This series allows the impacts of changing job trends on demand for buildings to be 
analyzed. 

The data was provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for 1974 to 1994. 
ABAG aggregates information provided by County Business Patterns (CBP) surveys. In its 
monitoring of the Bay Area economy, ABAG relies on both the CBP data collected by the federal 
government and California Economic Development Department data (EDD) that also tracks jobs. 
These two data sources differ in approach and methodology. CBP data is much more detailed at 
the industry level and as such is used for this analysis. CBP data is reported at the establishment 
level and includes sole proprietors and self-employed. EDD data tracks wage and salary 
employment only and tracks it by the place of record for payroll payment. EDD includes a 
smaller number of jobs than CBP data. Although there are differences in the two data series, 
comparing one series across time allows for valid conclusions to be made in the job trends at the 
industry and land use level. 

Year to year variances in the data occur for several reasons. CBP has data suppression 
requirements to prevent confidential information from being divulged. In some years, ABAG has 
estimated the data suppressed and in others this calculation-was not performed. SIC code 
designations have been adjusted over time which can also change the industry totals. Finally, the 
jobs in the administration and auxiliary employment category is not treated the same way in all 
years. 



, 



II 




« I 




I! 




J 

li 



Several trends dramatically changed traditional ratios of persons per household and employed residents 
per household over the past 25 years. Table B.4. 1 shows the changes in the Bay Area since 1970, and 
the ABAG projections for the years 2000 and 2010. Data is also shown for San Francisco County. 



TABLE B.4.1. 
TRENDS IN HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND EMPLOYED RESIDENTS: 1970-2010 




Bay Area 


San Francisco County 




Persons/ 
Household(HH) 


Employed 
Persons/HH 


%of 

population 

employed 


Persons/ 
Household 


Employed 
Persons/HH 


1970 


2.90 


1.21 


40.6% 






1980 


2.58 


1.30 


49.3% 


2.19 


1.16 


1990 


2.61 


1.40 


52.3% 


2.29 


1.28 


2000 


2.75 


1.38 


49.2% 


2.40 


1.25 


2010 


2.71 


1.40 


50.6% 


2.35 


1.25 



Source: US Census and ABAG Projections 96 

From 1970 to 1980, average household size in the region declined significantly while the proportion of 
employed persons per household increased. The result is that an increasing proportion of the total 
population was in the labor force and employed. In 1970, only 40.6% of the population was 
employed; by 1990 this had increased to more than 52% of the population Forecasts are for this ratio 
to decline slightly by the year 2000 and then start increasing gradually. 

While San Francisco has a substantially lower average household size than the region, the proportion of 
the San Francisco population that is employed is also approximately 50%. Another useful measure is 
the number of employed residents per household with employed residents. This deducts the number of 
households with only students, retired people, or unemployed persons. Unfortunately, the 1990 
Census only tabulated the number of families with no income earners, not the number of households. 
For San Francisco County, approximately 15% of family households had no employed person 
Another census question asked what percent of households had income earnings, and what percent had 
welfare, retirement, no income, etc. Approximately 21% of San Francisco households had no earned 
income in 1990. If one subtracts the number of households without earned income, the ratio of 
employed residents per household with employed residents (worker households) was 1.56, which is 
calculated by dividing the 378,921 employed San Franciscans by 242,880 households with employment 
income. An equivalent ratio for 1980 was approximately 1.5 employed residents per worker 
household, slightly lower than the current ratio. The average number of San Franciscans working in 



San Francisco per worker household in 1990 was 1 27, after subtracting the number of San Francisco 
residents who work in other counties. 

Given the regional forecasts which predict relative stability in persons per household and employed 
persons per household, it seems reasonable to project that the ratio of workers per household will not 
change during the next 10-15 years. Characteristics of San Francisco households do not mirror the 
regional trends, residents include both higher proportions of immigrants with large families and angles 
or couples without children. High housing prices may encourage older households to retire to lower 
cost areas Relative to the past 20 years, a higher proportion of new jobs may be in lower income 
service categories rather than higher paying office jobs. 

According to ABAG's Projections 96, the proportion of San Francisco population which is 65+ is 
expected to increase slightly from 1990 to 2000, from 14 6% to 15. 1%, but rise to 17 2% by the year 
2010 Taking this as a correlate of households without workers, the number of employed residents per 
worker household will have to increase slightly to keep the average number of employed residents per 
household at 1 .25, as shown in the table above. If the percentage of households with no workers 
increases by two percent, the number of employed residents per worker household would increase 
from 1 56 to 1 63 

Labor force participation ratios tend to correlate with ratios of employed residents to overall 
population. According to ABAG Projections 96 data, the overall 1980 labor force participation rate 
for San Francisco was 62 3% of those 15+ The comparable ratio for 1990 was 65 8%, mirroring the 
increase in employed persons per household Projections for 2000 are that 64 2% of those in the age 
bracket will be in the labor force, for 2010 it will be 64.9%. The conclusion is that changes in relative 
labor force participation rates will not be significant during the next 1 5-20 yean. 



. 



APPENDIX C: COMMUTE RELATIONSHIPS AND " 



The attached table shows the trends and forecasts for residence location for those who work in San 
Francisco. The" data base is from MTC and ABAG based on past census data and ABAG Projections 
96 for the future. 

San Francisco Workers 

Along with the reduction of proportion of San Francisco employed residents working in San Francisco, 
the proportion of all San Francisco jobs held by rc'dents dropped dramatically from 1970 to 1980, 
dropping from residents holding 62.6% of San Francisco jobs to 56% during that decade. From 1980 
to 1990, the proportion of San Francisco jobs held by San Francisco residents dropped by less than one 
percent. The ABAG/MTC (Projections 96) forecasts anticipate this ratio to remain constant at 
approximately 55% of San Francisco jobs held by local residents. Although a slight decrease in San 
Francisco employed residents working in the county was forecast from 1990 to 2000, San Francisco 
residents were forecast to represent 61% of the increment of new job holders in the County from 2000 
to 2010. 

The largest increases in the level of commute to San Francisco occurred from 1970 to 1980, and 
consisted of residents of Alameda and Contra Costa counties, followed by Marin and San Mateo. The 
data suggests that the opening of Transbay BART service during the 1970s may have had considerable 
impact on workplace and residence location among workers both in the East Bay and in San Francisco. 

The 1980 Census had a question on work location that itemized both central city and CBD. 
Unfortunately, the 1990 Census only asked about central city work location so does not provide 
comparable information. From the 1980 census, one can determine that 33% of San Francisco and San 
Mateo County residents who worked in San Francisco worked in the financial district, while the 
proportion for Marin County residents who commuted to the City was 41%. For commuters from 
Alameda County, 47% of those destined for San Francisco went to the CBD; Contra Costa County 
was the high with 55% going to the CBD. Overall, 37% of all San Francisco jobs were in the CBD in 
1980. 

The 1992 Crrywide Travel Behavior Survey contains mode split data by origin and by land use activity, 
but does not relate land use activity or work location by origin point. Of persons who responded to the 
employee survey, approximately 50 5% lived in the City, below the 55% cited in the Census/MTC data 
shown in the tables above. It unfortunately is not possible to determine residence location by land use 
activity information from the CTBS survey, and no other data on this topic is readily available. 

From the 1980 Census data which indicates that East Bay commuters to the City have the highest 
likelihood of working in the CBD, the fact that transit mode split is highest for office land uses and for 
East Bay commuters (CTBS), and that office uses are predominant in the CBD, one can surmise that a 
higher proportion of office workers live outside San Francisco relative to workers in retail. 



industrial/warehouse, hotel, and cultural/institutional land uses. However, the data does not allow us 
to project specific residential location data by land use activity We would estimate that hotel and retail 
workers are most likely to live in San Francisco, but cannot document it from the available dqr a The 
tables from the Transbay Area Plan validate the conclusion. For the C-3 East area (east of Kearny) 
where office uses certainly predominate, only 43 2% of the workers were San Francisco residents 
(compared to 54 1% citywide), while East Bay and North Bay residents were over-represented 
compared to their proportion of the entire San Francisco workforce (3 1 4% versus 219% for East 
Bay, 10. 1% in C-3 versus 8 0% in San Francisco for North Bay). l 

This data on residence of C-3 East area workers is relatively consistent with the analysis in the 1984 
Summary of the Economic Basis for an Office-Housing Production Program which forecast that the 
proportion of C-3 District office workers who lived in San Francisco would decline from 5 16% in 
198 1 to 45% in 2000 The analysis calculated that the net increment of C-3 District office workers 
living in San Francisco would be 31%, a factor that would bring the overall average down from 51% to 
45% as cited In the current assessment, the data projects that 55% of additional workers in San 
Francisco will be City residents, but there is no differential assessment for office and other types of 
workers Since the data does show greater in-commutes among C-3 District workers than among 
those working elsewhere in the City, San Francisco residents may represent 65% of additional workers 
in some land use activity and locational categories, and 30% to 40% of the increment for office 
workers in the C-3 District. 

Unfortunately, much of the most precise data that was used for the 1984 OAHPP seems to have come 
from the downtown EIR which was conducted in the early 1980*5. The City has not repeated the effort 
or collected comparable data in recent studies so it is difficult to directly update some of the data drawn 
from that study 



' 



San Francisco Planning Department, Transbay Ana Plan, Table 13 



TABLE B.2.1. WORK AND RESIDENCE LOCATION 

RESIDEN CE LOCA TION O F SAN F RANC.'SCO EMPLOYEES 

I 

I93C 



l San Francisco 
J San Mateo 
Santa Clara 

j Alameda 
I Contra Costa 
j Solano 
Napa 
Sonoma 
| Marin 

Total 



197U 

283184 

67723 

9052 

35197 

20491 

1249 

458 

3652 

31191 

452197 



284297 

78706 

7438 

50895 

38236 

4371 

549 

6489 

37662 

508643 



1990 

307377 

79022 

7594 

60797 

47714 

9829 

1044 

8357 

33673 

555407 



306456 

76420 

8059 

61366 

55090 

10695 

990 

7972 

32676 

559724 



20 W 

328328 

77905 

3022 

66968 

59312 

11312 

883 

8684 

34139 

595553 



Change 
1970-1990 

8.54% 

16.68% 

-16.11% 

72.73% 

132.85% 

686.95% 

127.95% 

128 83% 

796% 

22.82% 



Change 
1 990-20 10,' 



6.82% 

-1.41%; 

5.64% 

10.15%! 

24.31% | 

15.09% i 

■15.42% 

3.91% ' 

1.38% ! 

7 23% 



Proportion of SF Jobs Held by SF Residents 

SF res/jobs 62.62% 55.89% 55 34% 54.75% 55 13% 

increment 1.y/% 49.35% -21.33% 6105% 



Source: Gabriel- Roche Inc. from MTC Projections and ABAG Projections 96 



APPENDED* H€KiS^GPI^0UCTTONANDCO«I 



Overall Housing Production 

Table B.5-1, San Francisco Housing Stock Changes, presents the numbers of units completed, 
demolished, and altered per year for the years 1976 through 1995, along with the net changes. During 
the twenty year period the City realized a net gain in units each year, with the net change varying from 
a high of 2,345 units in 1989 to a low of 288 units in 1993. The average net change was 1, 158 units. 

During the twenty year period the highest production year occurred in 1989 when 2,573 new units 
were completed, and the lowest in 1993 when 379 were completed. The two lowest production years 
in the 20 year period were 1993 in which the 379 units were produced, and 1995, in which 532 units 
were produced. Both these years were during a period of strong recession in the real estate industry. 
The strongest phase was clearly 1985 through 1991, a seven year period when net growth in the 
housing stock was well above the 20 year average. 

The average number of new units completed per year during the twenty year period was 1,330 units. 
The four year period from 1992 to 1995 averaged 728 new units per year compared to an average 
2, 132 new units per year for the four yean preceding that. This represents a recent decline in housing 
production, a portion of which can be attributed to the fact that construction of large mum-unit 
projects peaked between 1988 and 1991 when large mixed-use residential developments were 
completed in San Francisco Redevelopment areas and in mixed use commercial districts. The decline is 
also representative of the general decrease in large scale real estate development in recent years. The 
increase in 1994 was due to the completion of a number of large affordable housing projects. 

Production by Building Type 

Table B.5-2, Units Completed by Building Types, presents the yearly number of units completed by 
building types for the ten-year period of 1986 through 1995. During that ten year period, buildings 
with 20 or more units have consistently represented the largest category of units built. Over the ten 
years, units in buildings with 20 or more units represented 67% of the units built, while those in 3 to 9 
unit structures represented 12 percent, 2 unit structures 8%, single family residences 7%, and 10 to 19 
unit structures 6%. 



^e major source of information for this section is Housing Inventory Report ; Planning Department, City and 
County of San Francisco, May, 1996. 



Production by Level of Aflbrdability 

Table B 5-3, New Income-Restricted Affordable Housing Construction, presents the number of new 
income-restricted units produced by year for the years 1980 through 1995 according to levd of 
affordability. During the period of 1980 through 1989 affordable 3 uruts represented 24% of the units 
constructed. During the period of 1990 through 1995 the percentage of affordable units produced 
compared to total units constructed increased to 31%. The average number of affordable housing units 
produced per year also increased during this period, with an average of 358 affordable units being 
produced per year from 1990 to 1995 compared to an average of 332 units per year from 1980 to 
1989 

Table B 5-4, Major New Income-Restricted Affordable Housing Construction by Bedroom Size, 
1990-1995, indicates that the largest category of affordable housing production during this period was 
in the two-bedroom category. Approximately 29% of the new units produced in major affordable 
housing developments during this period were 2-oedroom units. The next highest categories were in 
three and more bedroom units, at 23%, Single Room Occupancy units, at 21%, one-bedrooms at 15% 
and studios at 1 1 percent. 

According to San Francisco Planning Department data, San Francisco's universe of restricted 
affordable housing units consisted of 29,730 units as of February 1997 Approximately 1,830 units, or 
6 1% of the affordable units, are "inclusionary" units, constructed by the private sector without public 
subsidy The majority of these units are located within redevelopment project areas which have 
requirements regarding percentages of all housing development within such areas which must be 
affordable. The remaining units were provided as a result of planning regulations which require that 
certain percentages of affordable housing be made available under certain development conditions. Of 
the total of just under 30,000 affordable units, 3,3 13, or 111%, are within the boundaries of 
redevelopment project areas 

Vacancy Rate 

The Residence Element 1992 annual Evaluation Report reported a 4 2% crrywide vacancy rate in 
1989. The 1990 Census reported a 6 97% vacancy rate, or 22,887 units. According to the 1995 
Consolidated Plan, prepared by the Mayor's Office of Housing, this vacancy rate was high due to the 
inclusion of 2,797 damaged units resulting from the Loma Prieta earthquake which took place shortly 
before the census was taken, 2,679 newly constructed units not yet completed, 1,477 vacant tourist 
hotel rooms in residential hotels; and 2,8 17 vacant vacation homes or executive suites, which are not 
typically available to the general public. According to the Consolidated Plan no other accurate vacancy 
data is available However, the California Department of Finance also generates annual vacancy data 



'Affordable uruts arc defined as very low, 50% of HUD median income; low, 80% of HUD median income, and 
moderate, 120% of HUD median income. 



The annual survey indicated vacancy rates of 6.98% for 1992, 6.71% for 1993, 6.62% for 1994, 
6.34% for 1995, and 7.34% for January 1996. 4 

Rent Leveb and Purchase Prices 

After growing at a high rate from the mid-1979's to 1990, Bay Area and San Francisco home prices 
went through a period of correction and stabilization that lasted for five to six years. Increasing 
demand seems to be resulting in the beginnings of some price escalation once again, but the degree of 
price increases will depend on the growth in the economy and the ability to build additional housing 
both in San Francisco and throughout the region. 

The median home values reported by the Census of Population and Housing were $104,600 in 1980 
and $298,900 in 1 990, an increase of 1 86% during the decade. According to data compiled by the 
Real Estate Research Council (RERC) of Northern California, the average market price of single family 
homes in San Francisco decreased to $250,000 in 1994, before recovering slightly to $257,000 by the 
1st quarter of 1996. The 1996 average price in San Francisco compares to a Bay Area nine county 
average price of $224,000, which ranged from a high average price of $323,000 in Marin County to a 
low of $141,000 in Solano County. 

Data from the San Francisco Board of Realtors has tracked the sale prices for a three bedroom home in 
San Francisco. In contrast to the RERC data, it shows a smaller proportionate drop in home prices, 
from $300,000 in 1989 to $270,000 by 1994, before increasing again to $3 13, 100 by 1995. 

Rental data also indicates escalating prices, although relative to home prices, rents did not increase as 
fast from 1980 to 1990 and did not go through the significant dip of sales prices, being higher in 1996- 
97 than they were in 1990. According to Census data, median rent in San Francisco went from $267 in 
1980 to $613 by 1990. While a dramatic increase, the 130% increase in rent was much below the 
186% increase in housing prices. 

Surveys by the Bay Area Council found that the Citywide market rate average rent for an advertised 
two bedroom apartment in San Francisco was $928 in 1990. Rents varied significantly by area, with a 
range from highs of $1,450 in Northeast San Francisco and $1,200 in the Marina to less than $800 in 
the Mission, South Central and South Bayshore areas. Some estimates indicate a 20% increase in 
average rents from 1990 to 1995; the Bay Area Council's rent surveys indicated the $928 Citywide 
average for advertised vacancies in 1990 increased to $1,075 by 1995, an increase of just under 16%. 



4 California Department of Finance, California Population and Housing Estimate, Report E-5. 



TABLE B.5-1 

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING STOCK CHANGES 

1976 - 1995 


Year 


Units 

Approved/ 

Bid. Permits 


Units 
Completed Units 
New Const Demolished 


I Net Gain 
or (Loss) by 
Alterations 


* 

Net , 
Change 


1976 


1,622 


1,480 707 


r 


773 


1977 


1,536 


1,616 136 




1,480 


1978 


2,045 


1,375 


174 




1,201 


1979 


1,833 


1,516 


114 




1,402 


1980 


1,202 


980 


128 




852 


1981 


1,242 


780 


288 




492 


1982 


1,215 


589 


42 




547 


1983 


1,167 


1,400 


233 




1,167 


1984 


1,313 


790 


79 




711 


1985 


1,479 


1,568 


105 




1,463 


1986 


2,037 


1,507 


173 




1,334 


1987 


2,442 


1,553 


127 




1,426 


1988 


2,148 


2,011 


104 




1,907 


1989 


1,508 


2,573 


228 




2,345 


1990 


1,332 


2,065 


433 


105 


1,737 


1991 


987 


1,882 


90 


(60) 


1,732 


1992 


629 


767 


76 


34 


725 


1993 


1,001 


379 


26 


(65) 


288 


1994 


948 


1,234 


25 


(23) 


1,186 


1995 


525 


532 


55 


(76) 


401 


Total 


28,211 


26,597 


3,343 


(85) 


23,169 


Average 


1,411 


1,330 


167 


(4) 


1,158 



"The net change is units legally completed minus units demolished. Beginning in 1990, the net change includes 
units gained or lost by alteration permits. Illegal conversions or residential hotel unit conversions are not included 
Source: Housing Information Senes: Changes in the Housing Inventory for 1995 : San Francisco Planning 
Department; page 6. 



TABLE B.5-2 
UNITS COMPLETED BY BUILDING TYPES 









1986- 199! 








Year 


Single 
Family 


2 Units 


3 to 9 
Units 


10 to 19 
Uoits 


20 or More 
Units 


TOTAL 

U 
NI 

TS 


1986 


172 


176 


217 


38 


904 


1,507 


1987 


83 


200 


215 


64 


991 


1,553 


1988 


191 


262 


361 


76 


1,121 


2,011 


1989 


133 


122 


252 


158 


1,908 


2,573 


1990 


89 


48 


190 


156 


1,582 


2,065 


1991 


79 


62 


129 


87 


1,525 


1,882 


1992 


111 


100 


96 


79 


381 


767 ( 


1993 


51 


74 


56 


36 


162 


379 


1994 


63 


62 


121 


16 


972 


1,234 


1995 


69 


54 


89 


89 


231 


532 


Total 


1,041 


1,160 


1,726 


799 


9,777 


14,503 


Percent 


7% 


8% 


12% 


6% 


67% 


100% 


Average 


104 


116 


173 


80 


978 


1,450 



♦ 



Source: Housin£ Information Series: Changes in the Housin£ Inventory for 1995 : San Francisco Planning 
Department; page 12. 



TABLE B.5-3 ~~ 1 
NEW INCOME-RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION 

By Income Level* 


Year 


Very 
Low* 


Low 


Moderate 


Market 1 Total TotaJ Affordable 
Rate Units units % 


1980-1989 


1,518 


1,013 


793 


10,427 


13,751 


3,324 24% 




1990 


278 


180 





1,607 


2,065 


458 22% 




1991 


203 


154 


32 


1,493 


1,882 


389 21% 




1992 


16 


180 


54 


517 


767 


250 33% 




1993 


108 








271 


379 


108 28% 




1994 


686 


86 


4 


458 


1,234 


776 63% 




1995 


82 


80 


10 


360 


532 


172 32% 




80-95 Total 


2,891 


1,693 


893 


15,133 


20,610 


5,477 27% 




Average 


181 


106 


56 


946 


1,288 


342 27% 





•Very Low: 60% of HUD median income; Low, 80% of HUD median income; and Moderate, 120% of HUD 
median income. Very low includes extremely low income. 

Source: Housing Information Series: Changes in the Housing Inventory for 1995: San Francisco Planning 
Department, page 28. 



TABLE B.5-4 

MAJOR NEW INCOME RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION 

BY BEDROOM SIZE: 1990-1995 


OBR 


1 BR 


2 BR 3+ BR 


Live/Work Single Room 
Occupancy 


Total 


185 


255 


499 


397 


29 362 


1.727 


10.7% 


14 8% 


289% 


23 0% 


1.7% 21 0% 
1 


100% 



• 



Source: Gabnel-Roche. Inc. from Housing Information Scncs: Changes in the Housing Inventory for 1995 San 
Francisco Planning Department; pages 49-51 



B.6 Projections of Housing Production 3 

Overall Housing Production 

The total number of units approved for development by the San Francisco Planning Department in 
1995 was 20% lower than the number of units approved in the two prior years. The department 
approved approximately 1,200 units in 1995, a decrease from approximately 1,500 units in both 
1993 and 1994 As of April of 1996 the department had 627 units under review in projects of 10 
or more units. The 627 units were in 1 1 projects. The number of units going into the department 
for review during 1995 and the early part of 1996 tended to be fewer and in smaller projects than 
in the immediate prior years 

Similar to the decrease in units under Planning Department review, the number of units with 
permits issued by the Building Department decreased in 1995. Only 515 units were issued such 
permits, a decrease from 948 units in 1994 and 1,001 units in 1993 The previous low was in 
1992 when 629 units received building permits, and the previous high was in 1987, when 2,442 
received permits. The ten year average through 1995 was 1,450 units per year. 

According to the Planning Department, in recent years a number of approved projects have not 
been financed. This fact, along with the decreases in volumes of units under review and permits 
issued, indicates that housing production will remain low unless permit activity increases or 
financing for major projects improves. 



^e major source of information for this section is Housing Inventory Report Planning r>partment. City and County of 
San Francisco, May, 19%. 



Applying the projected growth of households from ABAG's Projections 96, San Francisco should 
produce 6,550 units from 1995 to 2000, or 1,3 10 per year, including a 4% vacancy rate, for the 
6,300 additional households anticipated. From 2000 to 2010, 15,470 additional households are 
anticipated, thus production of 1,610 units per year would provide sufficient additional units 
including the vacancy factor. Taking into consideration the actual housing production, 1430 units 
per year from 1988 through 1995, the number of units in the pipeline as of April, 1996, and the 
1995 to 1996 decrease in units in the pipeline, it can be concluded that unless conditions change 
the number of additional units required based on ABAG population projections will not be met. 
ABAG has not updated its projections of affordable housing needs. 

Affordable Housing Production 

Table B.6-1 indicates that as of April 1, 1996, 1,224 units of income-restricted affordable housing 
were under review, approved, or under construction. With that number of units in the pipeline it 
can be assumed that the average number of affordable units built during the last five years (358) 
will at least be met if not exceeded. The table also indicates that as with affordable housing 
production in the past, the majority of the units in the pipeline are slated for very low and low 
income residents. 

Even though it can be anticipated that the production of affordable housing units over the next 
several years will remain at its current level, there are approximately 8,000 of the existing 30,000 
affordable housing units which are at risk of losing their subsidy and going to market rate. These 
are project-based Section 8 units which were built during the 1970's and 1980's with 15 and 20 
year subsidies. Although to date none of the projects which have already reached the end of their 
subsidies have converted to market rate, the prospect remains that many of the 8,000 units may 
convert to market rate over the next several years. The federal government has taken interim 
steps to address this nation-wide problem; however, the potential costs for fully addressing the 
problem are very high, the government has not come up with a permanent solution, and the risk 
remains. 



TABLE B.6-1 

AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION 

MAJOR INCOME RESTRICTED PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE 

Projects Under Review, Approved, or Under Construction as of 4/1/96 


Projects Address/Name 


Units 


Type of Units/Income Level/Sponsor 


214 Haight Street 


12 Group Housing, Walden House adolescent 


301 Ellis Street 


93 Very low income, Catholic Chanties 


1096 Eddy Street 


21 


Progress Foundation 


1550 Fell Street 


70 


Group housing, Hamilton Family Center 


185 7 th Street 


29 


Very low income, HDNP 


3 rd & Armstrong Street 


53 


SFHDC 


100 Alemany/Market Heights 


46 


Family rental low income, BHCF 


1171 Mission Street 


30 


Women very low income, St. Anthony Foundation 


974 Howard Street 


24 


Very low income for disable persons, TODCO 


1010 S. Van Ness Avenue 


30 


Very low income, rental, MHDC 


101 Valencia Street 


118 


Family rental very low income, HDNP 


1290 PotreroA 25 th 


20 


Family rental-extremery low income, MHDC, SFRA 


240 4* Street 


30 


SRO, elderly rental very low income, TODCO 


151 Leland Avenue 


51 


Special population, Hospice By The Bay, SFRA 


670 Valencia 


50 


Elderly rental very low income, MHDC 


347 Dolores Street 


65 


Elderly rental very low income, Mercy Family H 


835 OTarrell Street 


74 


Formerly homeless persons and families, CHP 


1 Columbus Avenue/I Hotel 


104 


Elderly very low income, CCHC 


5545 3* Strea 


53 


Affordable housing for seniors, BRIDGE 


150 Bitton Street 


92 


Affordable rental units, HCDC 


29 th & Church Street 


39 


Some affordable units. Archdiocese of S.F. 


Fillmore Market Place 


120 


Family low income, SFRA 


Total Units 1,224 



Note: Project Sponsor abbreviations included on next page. 

Source: Housing Information Series. Changes in the Housing Inventory for 1995; San Francisco Planning 

Department; page 58. 



Project Sponsor Abbreviations 
Indicated on Table B.6.1 



AI - Asian Inc. 

AND Asian Neighborhood Design 

BHCF BernaJ Heights Community Foundation 

BRIDGE BRIDGE Housing Corporation 

CCHC Chinese Community Housing Corporation 

CHP Community Housing Partnership 

HCDC Housing Conservation and Development Corporation 

HDNP Housing Development and Neighborhood Preservation Corporation 

MCH Mercy Charities Housing Corporation 

MHDC Mission Housing Development Corporation 

SFHDC San Francisco Housing Development Corporation 

SFRA San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 

TODCO Tenants and Owners Development Corporation 

TNDC Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation 



APPENOIXK INCOME BY LAND USE ACTIVrTY 



The table below illustrates average wage by land use activity. 



1 


TABLE C.6.b.l. 1 
SAN FRANCISCO WAGES BY LAND USE ACTIVITY: 1995 | 




Office 


Retail 


Industrial 


Hotel 


Cultural/I 
nstitut 


Govern. 


1 Other 


Total 


95' Wages (1) 


$8,530 


51,628 


$4,873 


$418 


$3,481 


$1,546 


$47 


$20,431 


'95 
1 Employment 


167,379 


81,878 


114,007 


18,287 


109,546 


31,624 


1,383 


524,104 


Ave. Wage 


$50,962 


$19,883 


$42,743 


$22,858 


$31,777 


$48,887 


$33,984 


$38,983 



Note: '95 Wages in current millions of dollars 
Source: San Francisco Planning Department, 1996 

Commerce and Industry Inventory, tables 3.1.1 and 5. 1 . 1 

The attached list provides estimated 1997 Occupational Wages for San Francisco. This was 
compiled from EDD data. The data was updated from San Francisco, Alameda, or San Mateo 
County wages and increased by 3% a year from 1993 or 1994 to 1996, and then increased by 
1.7% to project for 1997. Hourly wage rates were multiplied by 2000 to derive an annual 
income. 



TABLE C.6.B.2. 
1997 OCCUPATIONAL WAGES FOR SAN FRANCISCO (1) 


OESCode 


Occupational Title 


Average 
1996 Wage 


Estimated 
1997 Wage (2) 


Annual 
Equivalent 


Average 


Managers and Administrative Occupations 


130020 


Financial Managers 


$26.30 


$26.75 


$53,494 




130110 


Marketing Pr Managers 


$17.20 


$17.49 


$34,985 




130140 


Admin. Services Manager 


$19.00 


$19.32 


$38,646 




150170 


Construction Managers 


$23.70 


$2410 


$48,206 




150230 


Comm/Util. 
Oper Manager 


$23.00 


$23.39 


$46,782 




150261 


Food Service Manager 


$12.50 


$12.71 


$25,425 




150262 


Lodging Manager 


$1320 


$1342 


$26,849 












1 


$39,198 | 



Professional and Technical Occupations 


211080 




Loan Officer 


J15 50 


$15 76 


$31,527 J 


21 1140 


Accountants 


$1438 


$14 62 


$29,249 






213080 


Purchasing Agent 


S15 20 


$1546 


$30,917 




225140 


Drafters 


$1360 


$13 83 


$27,662 






251051 


Computer Programmers 


J20 30 


$20 65 


$41,290 






283050 


Paralegal Personnel 


S1620 


$16 48 


$32,951 






313021 


Preschool Teacher 


$9 40 


$9 56 


$19,120 






313022 


Kindergarten Teacher 


$12 "7 


$13 19 


$26.3' T 6 






313050 


Teacher 


$13 83 


$14 07 


$28,130 






315020 


Librarian 


$1700 


$1729 


$34,578 






315211 


Instructional Aide 


$1000 


$10.17 


$20,340 






323050 


Occupational Therapists 


$23 20 


$23 59 


$47,189 






32*5050 


Licensed Voc Nurse 


$1570 


$1597 


$31,934 






325110 


Physicians .Assistant 


$26 40 


$26 85 


$53,698 






325181 


Pharmacy Technicians 


$1400 


$1424 


$28,476 






329050 


Medical Assistant 


$13 10 


$13 32 


$26,645 






329110 


Medical Record Tech. 


$10.50 


- $10 68 


$21,357 






340050 


Technical Writer 


$1540 


$1566 


$31,324 








$31 ,265 




Sales and Related 












430020 


Insurance Sales Agent 


$1360 


$1383 


$27,662 






490112 


Retail Sales Agent 


$665 


$6.76 


$13,526 






490140 


Parts Salesperson 


$11 50 


$11.70 


$23,391 






490170 


Counter Clerks 


$9 30 


$9 46 


$18,916 






490210 


Stock Clerta 


$7 70 


$7 83 


$15,662 






490230 


Cashiers 


$6 50 


$661 


$13021 






490230 


Cashiers • union 


$1100 


$11 19 


$22,374 
















$19,250 




Clerical and Administrative Support 










510020 


Clerical Supervisors 


$1525 


$15 51 


$31,019 






531020 


Teller 


$880 


$895 


$17,899 




531050 


Account Clerks 


$9 77 


$9 94 


$19,872 






531210 


Loan Clerk 


$12.33 


$1254 


$25,079 






535080 


Bill Collectors 


$11 63 


$11 83 


$23,664 







• 



1 



533020 


Insurance Adjust or 


$18.50 


$18.8: 


$37,631 




533110 


Insurance Clerk 


513.19 


513.41 


$26,824 






538050 


Reservation Agent 


510.40 


510.58 


$21,154 | 


538080 


"Hotel Desk Clerk 


513.40 | 513.63 | 527,256 | 


539140 


Real Estate Clerks | $13.60 | 513.83 | 527,662 




1 


551020 


Legal Secretary 519.20 | 519.53 


$39,053 1 


551050 


Medical Secretary 


510.65 


510.83 


521,662 | 




551080 


General Secretary 


512.20 


512.41 


524,815 






553050 


Receptionist 


51u.30 


510.48 


520,950 






553070 


Typist/Word Processor 


514.00 


514.24 


$28,476 






553140 


Personnel Clerks 


512.50 


512.71 


$25,425 






553410 


Payroll Clerks 


513.20 


513.42 


526.849 






553440 


Billing Clerks 


512.30 


512.51 


525,018 






553470 


General Office Clerk 


59.90 


510.07 


520,137 






560110 


Computer Operators 


51350 


513.73 


527,459 






560170 


Data Entry Keyer 


59.30 


59.46 


518,916 






580050 


Dispatcher 


510.90 


511.09 


522,171 






580280 


Shipping Clerk 


59.80 


59.97 


519,933 












- 




$25,171 




Service Occupations 












630470 


Guards 


510.40 


510.58 


521,154 






650260 


Cooks 


$9.80 


59.97 


519,933 






650380 


Food Prep. Workers 


57.70 


57.83 


515,662 






660020 


Dental Assistant 


512.20 


512.41 


524,815 






660080 


Nurse Aides 


56.88 


57.00 


513,994 






660110 


Home Health Care 
Worker 


510.30 


510.48 


520,950 






660171 


Physical Therapist Assist 


$19.20 


$19.53 


539.053 






660172 


Physical Therapist Aides 


510.60 


510.78 


521.560 






670050 


Janitor 


510.30 


51048 


520.950 








680050 


Hairdressers 


511 10 


51129 


522,577 






680380 


Child Care Workers 


$7 40 


$7 53 


$15,052 
















$21,427 





Production, Construction, Operating Occupat 


onj 









857050 


Equipment Repairers 


$11 25 


$11 44 


$22,883 { 




897990 f Desktop Graphic Design 


$1090 


$11 09 


$22,171 j 




899210 


Dental Lab Tech 


$10 50 


$1068 | 


$21,357 | 




925430 

... 


Printing Press Operators 


$12 30 


$12 51 


$25,018 ( 


$22,857 J 



( 1 ) California Employment Development Department (EDD) 

(2) 1 7% growth factor from Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(3) California EDD Labor Market Information Division 



APPENDIX Fr AFTORDABIiilY GAPS 



A key component of the OAHPP anaiysis is the calculation of the size of the gaps between what 
households can afford and the cost of producing additional housing in San Francisco. This analysis 
uses a relatively standard methodology to determine the housing that a variety of size households can 
afford, and compares that to the cost of providing additional housing. The analysis is conducted for 
various household sizes that meet HUD standards at very low, low, and moderate income criteria. 
Consideration is also given to the cost of producing both sales and rental housing 

Definitions and Assumptions 

There are many definitions and assumptions that must be clarified to follow the analysis. 

Income. Definition of income limits for housing programs are set by HUD for each metropolitan area. 
For 1997, 100% of median income for San Francisco is cited as $64,400 for a four person household. 6 
A very low income household is defined as one earning less than 50% of median household income, a 
low income household as one between 50% and 80% of median income, and a moderate income 
household is one earning 80% to 120% of median income. Median income for smaller households is 
factored down, thus the median income for a three person household is defined as 90% of that of a four 
person household, while median income for a single person household is 70% of that of a four person 
household. 

For this analysis, calculations of housing affordability were calculated for a very low income household 
earning 35% of median income, a low income household earning 70% of median income, and a 
moderate income household earning the median income. 

Housing Expenditure. Maximum monthly rent for various income categories was calculated as 30% 
of monthly income, including the payment of utilities. The utility allowance is based on figures derived 
from the HUD Section 8 program. Rent limits were set for unit sizes and various income levels, with 
utilities amounting to $30 per month for a studio, $40 for a one-bedroom, $63 for a two-bedroom unit, 
and $85 for a three-bedroom rental unit. 7 The occupancy standard used for the analysis is one person 
per bedroom plus one additional person. Thus, it is assumed that a studio is occupied by one person, a 
two-bedroom unit by three persons, and a three-bedroom unit by a household of four persons. 

For calculating maximum purchase price limits for for-sale housing, a key assumption is that 33% of 
income can be devoted to housing expenses, including payment of mortgage, property taxes, insurance, 
mortgage insurance, and homeowner fees. A slight modification of the formula used by the Mayor's 
Office of Housing was utilized, based on inputs from the consultant team and the Redevelopment 
Agency. A down payment of 5%, a 30 year loan at 8%, and homeowner expenses of $2000 for dues 



US. Department of Housing and Urban Development, issued 12/27/96. 

Mayor's Office of Housing, 1997 Income, Rent, and Purchase Price Limits, January 30, 1997. 



and 5% of income minus the $2000 for other expenses including the taxes and insurance complete the 
assumptions for purchase of housing. The previous analysis conducted by the Mayor's Office of 
Housing assumed a 90% mortgage and 10% down payment, and used $1500 for annual homeowners 
dues. 

Cost of Housing. Estimates of the cost of developing new housing in San Francisco were generated 
based on three primary sources, actual prices of market rate developments in San Francisco between 
1991 and 1995 as reported in the Planning Department's 1996 Housing Inventory Report, evaluation of 
several BRIDGE Housing Corporation projects in San Francisco, and experience of the San Francisco 
Redevelopment Agency While a few private developments achieve lower prices per square foot, 
larger units and/or additional amenities often result in higher unit prices. 

Four unit size prototypes were utilized, ranging from a 500 square foot studio through a 1, 100 square 
foot three-bedroom unit. At generalized cost of $245 per square foot for studios, $235 for a 650 
square foot one-bedroom unit, $225 per square foot for a two-bedroom unit, and $220 per square foot 
for the three-bedroom development, costs ranged from $122,500 for a studio, to $1 52,750 for a one- 
bedroom, $191,250 for a two-bedroom, and $242,000 for three-bedroom for-sale units The cost of 
developing rental housing was judged to be approximately 10% lower than the cost of the for-sale 
units. These cost include soft and hard costs, and include land price and fees. 

While the purchase price or rental price estimates are higher than the BRIDGE examples, some of the 
BRIDGE San Francisco projects may not include land value since the project descriptions cite land 
contributions or below market leases. Project densities for affordable developments seem to range 
from 40 to 70 units per acre for San Francisco projects, and land values, where cited, seem to range 
$ 1 5-20,000 per unit. Forty to 50 units per acre is a reasonable prototype for San Francisco two- 
bedroom units. That should allow 3-4 stories of stick construction over a concrete garage/podium. 

Afford ability' Gap Calculation A summary table and series of tables for each unit size prototype 
were developed for sale and rental units. Only rental housing was considered for very low income 
households at 35% of median income, and both rental and sale prototypes were considered for low and 
moderate income households at the 70% and 100% of median income levels. Supportable unit values 
for rental housing were developed based on the net operating income stream capitalized at 8%. Net 
operating income is calculated by subtracting utilities, operating costs, and a vacancy allowance, with 
the remainder repre s e nti ng the funds available to amortize a mortgage Supportable values for for-sale 
units were developed by calculating the supportable mortgage payment once expenses were deducted, 
and dividing by 95 to get full price with a 5% down payment. 



Conclusion 

Tables D. 1.0R through D. 1.3S show the subsidy required for each of the unit sizes for rental and for- 
sale housing. Table D.2.R summarizes the subsidy requirements for rental housing for the three 
income levels and for four unit/household sizes. For a very low income household, the subsidy 
requirements would range from $85,600 for producing a studio unit to as much as $196, 150 for a 
three-bedroom unit. The average for all unit sizes would be $136,250, slightly less than the 
approximately $149,500 subsidy required for a two-bedroom unit. 

For a low income household at 70% of median income, the average subsidy would be approximately 
$66,600, ranging from $28,300 for a studio to $1 1 4,200 for a three-bedroom unit. For a moderate 
income household, no subsidy would be required for a studio or one-bedroom unit, but a $12,500 
subsidy would be required for a two-bedroom unit and a $43,900 subsidy required for a three-bedroom 
unit. 

Comparative subsidies for low and moderate income households in for-sale housing, shown in Table 
D 2.S, are slightly higher than in rental housing with an average subsidy at $71,600 for a low income 
household and $20, 100 for a moderate income household, compared to $66,600 and $14, 100 averages 
respectively in rental housing. No subsidy would be required for a studio unit for a moderate income 
person earning $45, 100, the median income. 



JUN 9 1997 



TABLE 0.1. OR. (Sl'JdlOS) 

ESTIMATE OF SUBSIDY REQUIREMENT PER RENTAL UNIT(1) 

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING NFXUS STUDY 



income Level 

Affordable Monthly Housing Cost @ 30% 

Less monthly utility allowance (2) 

Affordable Monthly Rent 

Less Monthly Operating Cost (3) 

Less Vacancy Allowance @ 3% 

Net Monthly Operating Income 

Estimated Unit Value @ 8% Cap. Rate 

Less Development Cost per Unit 

Subsidy Required 



vary Low Income 


Low Income 


Moderate Ircomi 


35% of Median 


-0% of Median 


1CC% of Median 


$15,800 


$31,570 


$45,100 


$395 


$789 


$1,128 


$30 


$30 


$30 


$365 


$759 


$1,098 


$190 


$190 


$190 


$11 


$23 


$33 


$164 


$546 


$875 


$24,608 


$81,971 


$131,186 


$110,250 


$110,250 


$110,250 


$85,643 


$28,279 





(1) Stuaio units and 1 person households 

(2) Based on HUO Section 8 figures 

(3) Operating cost of $1 90 per montn based on institute of Real Estate Management. 1 995, 4 local experience 



TABLE D.1.0S (Studtos) 

ESTIMATE OF SUBSIDY REQUIREMENT PER OWNERSHIP UNIT (1) 

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING NEXUS STUDY 





Low Income 


Moderate Income 




70% of MecBan 


100% of Median 


Income Level 


$31,570 


$45,100 


Affordable Annual Housing Cost (2) 


$10,418 


$14,883 


Affordable Unit Price (3) 


$82,930 


$128,200 


Development Cost (4) 


$122,500 


$122,500 


Subsidy Required 


$39,570 


NA 



(1) Studio una and 1 person households 

(2) Represents 33% of Income 

(3) Assumes a 95% mortgage, 8% interest rate, & homeowner expense factor by Mayor's Office of Mousing ♦ $500 

(4) Based on recent San Frandsco projects and San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 



Source Gabriel-Roche, Inc. 4 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 



TABLE 1 1R(1 bedroom) 

ESTIMATE Or SUBSIDY REQUIREMENT Ft* RENTAL UNIT ( 1) 

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING NEXUS STUOY 



Income Level 

Affordable Monthly Housing Cost Q 30% 

less monthly utility allowance (2) 

Affordable Montnly Rant 

Lasa MontMy Opere&ng Cost (3) 

Laaa Vacancy ABowance $ 3% 

Nat Monrhry Operating Incoma 

Estimated Unit Valua Q 8% Cap Rata 

Laaa Oavalopmant Cost p*r Unit 

Subsidy Recured 






very i.ca" iiom« 


Low i -corn's 


'-try •( jia irenm 


J3S of Median 


70'/, of Uadijn 


100 


X jf Median 


S 13.000 


$36,050 




$51,500 


$450 


$901 




$1,288 


$40 


$40 




$40 


$410 


$861 




$1,248 


$240 


$240 




$240 


$12 


$28 




$37 


$158 


$505 




$970 


$23,655 


$89,312 




$143,511 


$137,500 


$137,500 




$137,500 


$113,845 


$48 188 







(1) Ona bedroom unrta and 2 parson households 

(2) Based on HUD Saction 8 figures 

(3) Operating coat of $240 per month cased on Institute of Raal Estate Management. 1 995 & local erpe/ience 



TABLED. 1.13(1 bedroom) 

ESTIMATE OF SUBSIDY REQUIREMENT PER OWNERSHIP UNIT (1) 

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING NEXUS STUOY 

Low income Moderate Income 

70% of Median 100% of Median 

Income Level $36,050 $51,500 

Affordable Annual Housing Cost (2) $1*897 S 16 995 

Affordable Unit Price (3) $97 930 $142,150 

Development Cost (4) $152,750 $152,750 

Subsidy Requred $54,820 $10,600 



(1) One bedroom units and 2 person households 

(2) Represents 33% of income 

(3) Aaaumee a 99% mortgage. 8% interest rate. & homeowner expense factor by Mayor's Office of Housing ♦ $500 

(4) Baaed on recent Sen Franasco protects and San Francaco Redevelopment Agency 

Source Gabriel-Roche. Inc. & Keyeer Marston Assoc atas Inc. 






. 



TABLE 0.1 2R (2 bedroom) 

ESTIMATE OF SUBSIDY REQUIREMENT PER REN T AL UNIT (1) 

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING NEXUS STUOY 



Income Level 

Affordable Monthly Housing Cost @ 30% 

Less monthly utility allowance (2) 

Affordable Monthly Rent 

Less Monthly Operating Cost (3) 

Less Vacancy Allowance Q 3% 

Net Monthly Operating Income 

Estimated Unit Value ® 8% Cap. Rate 

Less Development Cost p«r Unit 

Subsidy Required 



Very Lew income 


Low income 


Moderate Income 


35% cf Median 


70% of Median 


100% of Median 


$20,300 


$40,600 


$57,950 


3508 


$1,015 


$1,449 


$63 


$63 


$63 


$445 


$952 


$1,386 


$280 


$280 


$280 


$13 


$29 


$42 


$151 


$643 


$1,064 


$22,675 


$96,516 


$159,627 


$172,125 


$172,125 


$172,125 


$149,450 


$75,609 


$12,498 



(1) Two bedroom units and 3 person households 

(2) Based on HUD Section 8 figures 

(3) Operating coet of $280 per month based on Institute of Real Estate Management. 1995. & local experience 



TABLE D.1 2S (2 bedroom) 

ESTIMATE OF SUBSIOY REQUIREMENT PES 

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING NEXUS STUOY 



/WNtRSHIPUNlTO) 



Income Level 

Affordable Annual Housing Cost (2) 
Affordable Unit Price (3) 
Development Cost (4) 
Subsidy Required 



Lew Income 


Moderate Income 


70% of Median 


100% 


of Median 


$40,600 




$57,950 


$13,390 




$19,124 


$113,000 




$171,200 


$191,250 




$191,250 


$78,250 




$20,050 



(1) Two bedroom units and 3 person households 

(2) Represents 33% of income 

(3) Assume* a 96% mortgege, 8% interest rate. & homeowner expense factor by Mayor's Office of Housing ♦ $500 

(4) Based on recent Sen Francisco projects and San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 



Source: Gabriel-Roche. Inc. & Keyser Marston Associates. Inc. 



TABLE 0.1. 3R (3 bedroom) 

ESTIMATE OF SUBSiOY REQUIREMENT P'_R 

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING NEXUS STUCV 



Income Laval 

AffordaPle Monthly Housing Cost @ 30% 

Less monthly utility allowance (2) 

Affordable Monthly Rant 

Less Monthly Operating Coat (3) 

Laaa Vacancy Allowance Q 3% 

Net Monthly Operating Income 

Estimated Unit Value Q 8% Cap Rate 

Lesa Development Cost per Unit 

Subsidy Required 



(1) Three bedroom umts and 4 oerson households 

(2) Besed on HUO Section 8 Figures 

(3) Operating coat of $320 per month based on institute of Real Estate Management 1995. 1 local expenence 



PER RENTAL UNIT fi) 








Ve-y Lew income 


Low '.^c^ir.d 


Mo' 


:orat* Incom 


35% of Mjdian 


70% cf Median 


'00% of Median 


$22,550 


145.0*0 




$64 400 


$564 


$1 127 




$1 610 


$85 


$85 




$65 


$479 


$1 042 




$1,525 


$320 


$320 




$320 


$14 


$31 




$46 


$144 


$691 




$1 159 


$21 858 


$103,611 




$173,868 


$217,800 


$217,800 




$217,800 


$196,142 


$114,169 




$43,913 



• 






TABLE D.1. 3S (3 bedroom) 

ESTIMATE OF SUBSIDY REQUIREMENT PER OWNERSHIP- ufVT (1) 

SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING NEXUS STUDY 





Low income 


Moderate 'ncome 




70% of Median 


100% 


of '/edian 


Income Level 


5-15.080 




•JR4 400 


Affordable Annual Housing Cost (2) 


$14876 




$21 252 


Affordable Unit Price (3) 


$128,150 




$192 800 


Development Cost (4) 


$242,000 




$242,000 


Subsidy Required 


$113,850 




$49,200 



(1) Three bedroom units and 4 person households 

(2) Represents 33% of income 

(3) Assume* a 06% mortgage. 8% interest rate. 4 homeowner expense factor by Mayor's Office of Housing * $500 

(4) Based on recent San Franasco projects and San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 



Source. Gabriel-Roche. Inc. & Keyser Marston Associates inc. 



APPENDIX Gt NEXUS METHODOLOGY AND DOCOMENTATIOW 



Step 1 - Estimate of Total New Employees 

The estimate of the number of employees is derived based on an employment density factor for each 
land use. As shown below, the gross building area is divided by the employment density factor to 

calculate employees. 

Gross Building divided Employment = Employees 

Area by Density Factor 

The employment density factor is different for each land use and can vary widely within each land use 
depending on land use types. Densities for industrial uses, for example, vary within a huge range. 
Other land uses are "ore constant. Employment density factors in this analysis are based on density 
factors developed by the City of San Francisco, KMA's experience in working in the Northern 
California market and general industry trends. 

The office employment density factor is estimated at 275 sq.ft. per employee. This estimate assumes a 
5% office vacancy factor. The employment density factor for retail is 350 sq.ft. per employee and for 
hotel 0.75 rooms per employee. These density factors are based on typical tenant types in the Northern 
California and San Francisco markets. 

For medical and cultural institutions employment density factor, KMA has relied on trends in several 
metropolitan areas in California and recent EIRs for San Francisco project data. 

The employment density factors used in this analysis are the following: 

Office 275/sq.ft./employee 

R&D 400/sq.ft./employee 

Medical 300/sq.ft7employee 

Cultural Institutional 750/sq.ft./employee 

Retail 350/sq.ft./employee 

Hotel 0.75/room/employee 

Step 2 - Declining Industry Adjustment 

See Section II of the Report. 



Step 3 - Estimate of the Number of Households 

This step estimates the number of households represented by a given number of employees. The 
number of households needs to be estimated since housing assistance is based on household income 
and household size The 1990 US Census estimates there are 1 63 wage earners per non-elderly 
household in San Francisco. Using this factor the number of households can be calculated. 



Employees in 


divided 


Average Number of 


New 


New Households 


by 


Workers per- 
Household 


Households 


Source: 









(1) Estimate of Total Households: 1990 Census of Population and Housing 

(2) Estimate of Elderly Households 1990 Census of Population and Housing 

(3) Estimate of Employee Labor Force: 1990 Census of Population and Housing 
Calculation of Average Number of Workers per Household: 

Estimate of Employee'" divided (Est of HH ' - Est of Elderly HH* :> ) 

by 

Step 4 - Breakdown of Households by Occupation 

This step divides households by occupational groupings for each land use. For purposes of this 
analysis, we have relied on the occupational groupings defined by the State of California Employment 
Development Department and the US Census. Occupational groupings include Managerial/ 
Professional, Technical/Sales, Clerical, Craft/Kindred, Service, and/or Laborer. For each land use 
category, such as office, the total number of households identified in Step 4 are desegregated into 
occupation categories. In this step, we have relied on U S Census data which provides comprehensive 
occupational data for the United States. We then used EDD data for the San Francisco County as a 
refinement to the national data. 



New Households 



Data Source: 



Percentage of 
Households in each 
Occupation Category 



New Households 
in each Occupation 
Category 



Projections of Employment by Industry and Occupation," San Francisco County, Employment 
Development Department. 

"1980 Census of Population, Occupation by Industry Survey," US. Department of Commerce 



J 



Step 5 - Estimate of Employees Meeting the Income Definition 

The number of households in each occupation category that faH within the respective income 
categories are estimated in Step 5. To accomplish this step, GRI first reviewed available wage survey 
data collected by the U.S. Department of Labor, State of California Employment Development 
Department. 

For most occupations data was available for a select number of job types. Judgments were made based 
on extrapolation of available data to estimate the percentage of households that have a wage earner 
that may qualify for assistance. Income levels for the median and lower income categories, are set by 
HUD. This does not necessarily mean the household qualifies for assistance since the household must 
also meet household size criteria. 

The most comprehensive wage data was found for office workers, particularly for clerical and 
professional/technical occupations. Available wage data for other land uses and related occupational 
groups was less complete and provided data for only select job types, such as welder and cashier. 
KMA, therefore, made estimates of income distribution by occupation. To estimate the percentage of 
households earning less than the upper income limit in the craft/kindred, service and operative/laborer 
occupations, we used the clerical wage data as a benchmark and have made adjustments relying on 
available wage data for selected job types in each of the occupational categories. This methodology 
requires adjustments to correct for the possibility that households earning less than the upper income 
limit for each of these occupations is not based on a representative range of job types but rather on 
specific job types which may not adequately reflect the range of salaries in an occupation category. 
Additional research could be undertaken to see if more comprehensive wage data is available. 

The next step estimates the number of households in each of the six income subgroups defined by 
HUD. This is done for the very low and low and moderate income categories. For this step, we have 
again relied on clerical wage data. As previously discussed, this data is the most comprehensive and 
this is utilized to estimate the number of households in each of HUD's income subgroups. This is done 
for the craft/kindred, service and laborer/operative occupational categories and applies to all land use 
categories. 

The clerical income distribution was utilized to estimate the number of households in each of HUD's six 
income subgroups. From that distribution, estimates for the four other occupational categories were 
made based on wage data from a representative sample of jobs. Additional research could be 
undertaken to obtain more comprehensive and detailed wage data for each occupation category. 



Step 6 - Estimate of Household Silt Distribution 

HUD's criteria for assistance is dependent on a household meeting a combination of income and 
household size requirements. Step 6 estimates the number of households in each household size 
category ranging from one person per household to six persons or more per household. 

Household 

^ize 



1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 + 

Data Source: 



39.3% 

30.2% 

12.5% 

8.6% 

4.5% 

4,8% 



US Census: Detail Population Characteristics, California. 

Step 7 • Estimate of Households That Meet Income and Size Criteria for Assistance 

This step calculates the number of households that meet HUD's lower income assistance criteria. 
Using a matrix format, a probability factor is calculated for each of the three income level subgroups 
To determine the probability factor for each occupation category, the probability factors calculated for 
each HUD level are totaled. This number represents the probability that new households in a given 
occupation category will meet both income and household size criteria established by HUD 



To determine the number of households that qualify for assistance, the probability factors are multiplied 
by the number of households by occupation estimated in Step 4. This is done for each land use 
category. 



EXAMPLE 



Land Um: Office 






Occupation: Clerical 






Assistance Laval: Vary Low 






% of Household by Incoma 






%of* 




1 


Incoma Lavala Housaholda 




(39.3%) 


< $22,500 


20% 


[.0791* 


< $25,750 


40% 




< $29,000 


60% 




< $32,200 


70% 




< $34,800 


80% 




< $37,500 


83% 





% of Houea. holda by Sam 2 

2 3 4 5 6 

130-2%) (12.6%) (8.6%) (4.6%) (4.9%) 



(.1211 

I.075I 

(.0601 

1.036] 

(.041) 
Total [412| 

Housaholda Requiring Assistance: .412 x 67 clerical household** - 28 household* 

' Step 5 

2 Step 6 

3 To calculate probability factor multiply the percentage of household* by income figure by the 1 parson household aiza 

percentage 

4 Step 4 

Step 8 - Adjustment to Eliminate Most Multiple Earner Households 

This last step makes an adjustment to eliminate most of the households that have two or more earners 
such that the incomes in combination make the household no longer qualify for the lower income 
categories. 

From the U S. Census, we can estimate the number of multiple earning households that fall within each 
income category. For example, of all multiple earning households we estimate that 6% fall in the very 
low income category. Our methodology in the nexus analysis estimates the number of multiple earner 
households based on the assumption of 1 .63 earners per household (this is an average for all 
households). This estimate of earners per household overstates the number of multiple earners in the 
lower end income categories. As a result, we have adjusted the number of multiple earner households 
presented in the nexus analysis to the estimated number indicated by the U.S. Census data. 

Step 9 - Adjustment to Discount for Non-Resident Workers 

See Sections I and II of the Report. 



gS^ PLANNING DEPARTMENT " sp 

§n3§H| City and County pi San Francisco 1660 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103-2414 

,., cj ceo (.vja PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION CURRENT PLANNING /ZONING LONG RANGE PLANNING 
^s^_o/ 1113; 330-0J/0 FAX . jsg^OT FAX . 553^426 FAX: 558-6409 FAX: 558-6426 



June 28, 1999 •%> 



Ms. Gloria L. Young 

Clerk of the Board 

Room 244 

#1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: Case No. 1 999.1 73ET: Planning Code Amendment ' < ' C ' 

Section 313: Jobs-Housing Linkage Program 13 OJ 

Dear Ms. Young: 

On June 3, 1999, the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above- 
referenced matter and made a recommendation to adopt. 

With this letter, the following are transmitted: 

City Planning Resolution No. 14832, adopted June 3, 1999 recommending the proposed 
amendment to the City Planning Code (15 copies) 

Office Affordable Housing Production Program Annual Report, June 1998 (15 copies) 

Original text amendment ordinance (plus 15 copies) 

Final Negative Declaration dated April 27, 1999 (15 copies) 

Original resolution for the Board of Supervisors' endorsement of the Planning Commission's 
adoption of the Final Negative Declaration (plus 3 copies) 

Please contact Catherine Bauman of the Department at 558-6287 for any additional information 
that may be needed. 



Sincerely, 




Gerald G. Green 
Director of Planning 

End. 



OFFICE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT 

June 1998 

This is a report on the Office Affordable Housing Production Program. Such a report is 
due annually, but the activity in the program has not warranted one since the last done 
in April 1994. No funds have been collected, or expenditures made, since the 1994 
report. This report updates the status of office projects listed in the 1994 report, and lists 
office projects subject to the requirement that have been approved or proposed since 
then. 

I. BACKGROUND (A SHORT HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF OAHPP) 

Around 1 980 the City began to recognize that large-scale office construction resulted in 
demand for housing, especially low-income housing, for those who work in the offices. 
In April 1981, the City Planning Commission adopted a set of Interim Guidelines for the 
implementation of the Office Housing Production Program (OHPP). In 1985, the City 
adopted the Office Affordable Housing Production Program (OAHPP) as Section 313 of 
the Planning Code, applying to projects of 50,000 square feet in the C-3 district. 
Section 313 was amended in 1990 to include projects over 25,000 square feet citywide. 
The ordinance has no sunset clause. It has a requirement that the Director of Planning 
undertake an analysis of the continuing connection between job growth and housing 
need in order to update the ordinance. This analysis has been prepared by Keyser 
Marston Associates and will be presented separately. 

Projects approved during the Interim Guidelines period, under the original ordinance, 
and since 1 990 are subject to slightly different requirements. Projects approved before 
1 990 under the original ordinance must comply before the Certificate of Occupancy is 
issued. Those approved after January 1990, must comply with the ordinance before the 
Site Permit is issued. 

The current fee is $7.05 per net additional gross square foot of office space. This fee is 
to be reexamined each year and adjusted to meet current housing price levels. The fee 
was last adjusted in December 1 994. Developers have the option of participating 
directly in the production of housing or paying a fee. Most have chosen to pay the fee, 
which is deposited in the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund administered by the 
Planning Director, in cooperation with the Mayor's Office of Housing. 

II. OFFICE PROJECTS SINCE 1994, AND THEIR OAHPP STATUS 

Since the 1994 report, no office projects have proceeded to the point that compliance 
with OAHPP is required. Some of the office projects described in that report have 
changed, some abandoned, and others are now proceeding through the approval 
process. Table I identifies projects that have, or are expected to have obligations in the 
future. It includes projects recently approved or reapproved by the Planning 
Commission, and those that the Planning Department staff believes are being actively 
pursued. 

III. HOUSING PROJECTS ASSISTED SINCE 1994 

No expenditures for housing projects from the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund have 



been made since the 1994 report. 

IV. CREDITS FROM INTERIM GUIDELINES 

Before the ordinance was adopted in 1985, office developers had mitigated their 
housing impacts by complying with the Interim Guidelines. Between 1981 and 1985, 
38 office developers complied with the Interim Guidelines by constructing housing 
themselves or contributing funding to housing developers. Projects including 5,690 
units (3,841 of them affordable) were assisted through this program. Some developers 
accrued more "credits" than were used for office development. These excess credits 
have been preserved through the subsequent ordinances. As a result, several 
developers maintain excess credits which may be applied to future office projects. Only 
projects authorized before March 1999 are eligible to receive excess intenm guidelines 
credits. Developers with credits are shown in Table II. 

V. THE CITYWIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND 

The 1994 report showed that, since the enactment of OAHPP in 1985 and 1994, 22 
office projects have been approved by the Planning Commission. Of these, ten have 
been built as office buildings subject to OAHPP, and four are proceeding through the 
permit process, but have not received the Department of Building Inspection permits 
that trigger compliance with OAHPP. Contributions made to satisfy OAHPP have 
resulted in the direct construction of 255 residential units, 47 affordable to those of low 
or moderate income, contributions of $4,158,045 in fees to the Citywide Affordable 
Housing Fund, and contributions of $3,980,145 directly to a developer of affordable 
housing. 

The Citywide Afordable Fund has also received funds from developers of housing and a 
hotel developer as a condition of approval for projects which result in a loss of housing, 
do not meet the inclusionary requirement, or have other housing impacts. The total of 
these contributions to the fund is $1,814,243. 



VI. CONCLUSION 

Between 1990 and 1995, office employment declined by about 11%, from 187,000 to 
165,600. During this time, therefore, no new need for housing occurred as a result of 
growth in the office sector. In 1996, office employment increased by about 7% to 
1 77,000 and continues to grow, while office vacancy declines. As employment 
increases, existing office projects fill up, and new ones open, more people will need 
housing in San Francisco. 

Keyser Marston has completed a study of housing demand generated by new 
employment in San Francisco, to be used in evaluating the program. This study will be 
discussed separately. It confirms that new office buildings result in new employees. It 
estimates that in San Francisco 100,000 square feet of office space will result in 
demand for about 90 units in San Francisco, 52 of them by households oi moderate 
income or below (as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development). 
Using this assumption, contributing office developments have resulted in a demand for 
about 120 units by households of moderate income or below. 



TABLE I. OFFICE PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE (subject to OAHPP) 

Case # Project Square Ft of Office (net addition) Status 

83.447,97.570 150 Green 40,000 approved 1 0/85. Under review 

87.613,98.084 150 California 177,000 approved 1 989, reapproved 5/98 

89.589 300 Howard/199 Fremont 382,600 approved 1989, permit still 

active 

94.105, 97.484 101 Second , 368,000 approved 1995, reapproved 1997, 

in partial compliance (credit for 42.5 units, 1 995 obligation was 1 42 units.) 
97.787 650/690 Townsend 263,000 office conversion from showroom 

approved 1/98 

97.215 1 Second (39-67 Second) 283,000 approved 2/98 

96.159,96.643 254 Front Street 58,700 approved 3/98 

97.678 640 Battery 11 0,000 office, 125 Res. Units under review 

97.674 945 Battery 55,800 under review 

97.470 475 Brannan 61,000 under review 

97.850 651 Folsom 1 60,700 office, gr fl. retail under review 

98.135 1 Market 60,000 sf add'n under review 

98.281 China Basin Bldg Expansion 105 Berry St. 170,000 sf of office under 

review 

97.717 Pacific Exchange Folsom, between Main & Spear 274,000 sf of office 

143,000 sf of assembly 8,400 sf of retail under review 



TABLE II - DEVELOPERS WITH EXCESS INTERIM GUIDELINES CREDITS. 

Developer Excess Credits Changes since 1 994 Report 

Multi-Asian Properties (S.F. Federal S.&L. Bank) 07 
Westtake Development 52 

Marathon 89 
Milton Meyer 14 
Deringer Development 04 

Grosvenor Propoerties, Ltd. 1 45 15 credits returned from 1 50 Green which did not 
proceed. 

Lurie Company 94 

Bredero Nrtohern 78 

Total excess credits 483 credits = 210 OAHPP units 2.3 Interim Guilelines credit 
equals one OAHPP unit. 



TABLE III - OFFICE PROJECTS SUBJECT TO OAHPP SINCE 1985 

Case # Project Contributions to Fund Units built 

83.331 100 First Interim Guidelines - Built 255 units OAHPP - Built 

47 affordable units 

82.039, 82.092 2 Harrison Direct contribution to housing developer: 

$3,095,140 (to build 177 affordable units) 
83.213 59 Harrison $410,422 (8/88), $40,000 (1 1/88) 

86.085 600 California $1 ,536,724 (10/90) 

84.432 235 Pine $870,250 (4/90) 

85.079 343 Sansome Direct contribution to housing developer $885,005 (to 

build 177 units) 

90.568 1075 Front $238,01 0J9/92) 

81.249 83.510 84.397 1 - 34S- Caliform $34,882 (6/89) $367,757 (6/89) 

81.244 China Basin Properties Interim Guidelines $660,000 (4/90) 

81.549 1145 Market Approved 11/83, M 9837. 

TOTAL $8,138,190 302 units 



U:\CCB\WP51\698oahpp.doc 






Case No. 1 999.1 73ET: 
Planning Code Amendment 
Section 313: Jobs-Housing Linkage Program 

Page 1 

San Francisco 

City Planning Commission 

Resolution No. 14832 

As required by Section 313.12 of the Planning Code, the Department has conducted a 
study to update the information about the relationship between office and other 
commercial development and housing demand. The study, performed by Keyser 
Marston Associates, is now complete. 

The study shows that there is a relationship between new commercial development, 
such as office, research and development, medical, cultural/institutional, retail and hotel 
development, and the need for affordable housing in San Francisco. The Department, 
working with the Office Housing Production Program Technical Advisory Committee, 
narrowed the application of the Study findings to office, retail, entertainment and hotel 
developments only. Thus, developers subject to the program would provide mitigation 
for only a fraction of the actual increased demand for housing generated by the project. 

On March 18, 1999, the Commission announced a hearing on the Department's 
recommendation on this housing mitigation program to be held on May 6, 1999. 

The Department recommends that Planning Code Section 313 be amended to apply 
the fee to additional commercial uses, namely, retail, entertainment, and hotel 
development projects, replacing the Office Affordable Housing Production Program with 
the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program. The Commission has considered the Final 
Negative Declaration (FND) prepared on the Department's recommended program. 

The Planning Commission hereby: 

Finds that on the basis of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence 
that the recommended program will have a significant effect upon the environment 
which would require mitigation measures, and that the Final Negative Declaration 
prepared for the program reflects the Commission's independent judgement and 
analysis. 

Adopts the Final Negative Declaration as part of the record of its proceedings along 
with background materials available for review at the Planning Department offices. 

Adopts the proposed amendments to Section 313 of the City Planning Code, which are 
attached. 



Case No. 1 999.1 73ET: 

Planning Code Amendment 

Section 313: Jobs-Housing Linkage Program 

Page 2 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on June 3, 1999. 

Jonas P. lonin 
Commission Secretary 

AYES: Commissioners Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Martin, Mills, Richardson, Theoharns 

NOES: None 

ABSENT: None 

ADOPTED: June 3, 1999 



' 









IS). 



laii2M| NFCAfV. 



DECLARATION 



Date of Publication of 

Preliminary Negative Declaration: April 3. 1999: Amended April 26. 1999 

Lead Agency: Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco 
1660 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 

Agency Contact Person: Hillary E. Gitelman Telephone: (415)558-6381 



Project Title: 1999. 178E: Jobs-Housing Linkage Ordinance 
Project Sponsor: San Francisco Planning Commission 
Project Contact Person: Hillary E. Gitelman (415) 558-6381 



Project Address: Citywide 

Assessor's Block(s) and Lot(s): Citywide 

Citv and County: San Francisco 



Project Description: The proposed project is an ordinance that would amend the San Francisco Planning Code to 
re-name and expand the Office Affordable Housing Production Program (OAHPP) set forth in Section 313 of 
the Planning Code. Under the proposal, the requirement to provide housing or pay an in-lieu fee according to a 
demand-based formula would continue to apply to new office developments of 25,000 square feet or more, and 
would be expanded to apply to hotel, retail, and entertainment related developments meeting size criteria. 

Building Permit Application Number, if Applicable: N/A 

THIS PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. This finding is based 
upon the criteria of the Guidelines of the State Secretary for Resources, Sections 15064 (Determining Significant Effect), 
15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance) and 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration), and the following 
reasons as documented in the Initial Evaluation (Initial Study) for the project, which is attached. 

Mitigation measures, if any, included in this project to avoid potentially significant effects: none. 

Final Negative Declaration adopted and issued on: 

In the independent judgement of the San Francisco Planning Department, ^Kj^ is no sy6jrfa/tial evidence that the project 
could have a significant effect on the environment. 



Lisa Fernandez (first page) 

Gerald G. Green/Amit Ghosh Hilary E.XJTitelman 

Master Decision File Environmental Review Officer 




1999.178E -- Jobs-Housing Linkage Ordinance 
Initial Study 



On March 18, 1999, the San Francisco Planning Commission initiated proposed legislation that 
would amend the San Francisco Planning Code to re-name and expand the Office Affordable 
Housing Production Program (OAHPP) set forth in Section 3 13 of the Planning Code. In general, 
the proposal would perpetuate the requirement for developers of office projects of 25,000 square feet 
(sf) or more to provide affordable housing, o*pay an in-lieu fee for the development of affordable 
housing. Under the proposal, this requirement would be expanded to apply to hotel, retail, and 
entertainment-related developments meeting certain size criteria, as described further below. 

Background 

The current OAHPP was originally established in 1985 with adoption of Planning Code Section 3 13 
et seq. The program linked the development of office buildings to the demand for affordable 
housing by requiring office developers to either build affordable housing or pay an in lieu fee. The 
link, or "nexus," between office development and housing demand was analyzed in the 1984 study 
by Recht Hausrath & Associates, entitled Summary of the Economic Basis for an Office Housing 
Production Program. In 1990, the Planning Code was amended to extend the life of the program, 
to reduce the threshold size for office projects from 50,000 sf to 25,000 sf, to clarify target income 
levels, and make other adjustments. In 1994, the program expired. The program was later 
reinstated, and the life of the program was again extended in 1996. At that time, the Code was 
amended to require the Director of Planning to update the 1984 Recht Hausrath report "to show the 
relationship between office and other commercial development and housing demand." 1 

In compliance with Code requirements, the San Francisco Planning Department secured the services 
of Keyser Marston Associates after the 1996 amendments, to assess the OAHPP, and to analyze the 
nexus between the demand for affordable housing, and the following commercial land uses: office; 
retail and entertainment; hotel; medical related; cultural and institutional; and research and 
development (R&D) uses. In addition, whereas the original study focused on the downtown area 
only, the Keyser Marston analysis assessed the jobs-housing relationship without specific reference 
to downtown. 



'Quotations are from San Francisco Planning Code Sections 313.12 and 313.13. Background information in 
this paragraph and throughout this document is derived from Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. - and - Gabriel Roche, 
Inc., Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis, City of San Francisco, prepared for the Office of Affordable Housing Production 
Program (OAHPP) of San Francisco, July 1997. A copy of this report is available for review in Case File No. 
1999. 178E at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street. 

Page 2 1999 1 78E-- Jobs-Housing Linkage 



Project Description 

The proposed project is legislation that would modify and expand an existing housing exaction, or 
linkage fee, established by the San Francisco Planning Code. The expanded program would be 
based on formulas derived from the Keyser Marston report cited above. Specifically, the legislation 
would rename the OAHPP as the "Jobs Housing Linkage Program,*' and would do the following: 

Maintain the current threshold for office space at 25,000 sf, adjust one of the office space 
formulas, and clarify that office space may include "research and development" space. The 
adjusted formula would require construction of 0.000161 housing units per sf of office space. 
The in lieu fee for office space would remain at $7.05 per sf. 

• Apply the program to all new and_ expanded hotel space of at least 25,000 sf, requiring 
payments to housing developers or payments of in lieu fees, as established by formulas. The 
formulas would require construction of 0.0001 10 dwelling units per sf of hotel space, or 
payment of a $4.25 per sf in lieu fee. Also, adjust the definition of "hotels." 

• Apply the program to all new and expanded entertainment space of at least 50,000 sf, requiring 
payments to housing developers or payments of in lieu fees, as established by formulas. The 
formulas would require construction of 0.000140 dwelling units per sf of entertainment space, 
or payment of a $5.29 per sf in lieu fee. 

• Apply the program to all new and expanded retail space of at least 100,000 sf, requiring 
payments to housing developers or payments of in lieu fees, as established by formulas. The 
formulas would require construction of 0.000140 dwelling units per sf of retail space, or 
payment of a $5.29 per sf in lieu fee. 

• Expand the list of projects excluded from the program to include developments in Mission Bay 
North and South. 

• Require periodic reporting on affordable housing in the City, the status of compliance with the 
Jobs-Housing Linkage Program, and the efficacy of the program in mitigating the shortage of 
affordable housing available to employees working in development projects subject to the 
ordinance. 

The expanded program would apply to projects for which environmental evaluation applications are 
filed after a specific start-up date, and would be in effect for four years from its effective date. 
Section 313.13 would allow the program to be modified during that period if there are adverse 
changes in the Bay Area's economic performance. 2 



ilie above represents a summary only For the precise Code changes proposed and more specific information, including 
applicable formulas, please refer to the proposed legislation itself A copy is available for review in case file number 1999 178E 
at the San Francisco Planning Department. 1660 Mission Street. 

Page 3 1999 178E -- Jobs-Housing Linkage 



The proposed project would require approval of the San Francisco Planning Commission and the 
Board of Supervisors. A hearing to consider the matter is currently scheduled for May 6, 1999 at 
the San Francisco Planning Commission. 

Project Setting 

The City and County of San Francisco is an urbanized area encompassing about 2 1 ,600 acres, with 
a downtown core located in the northeastern quadrant of the City. The Association of Bay Area 
Governments (ABAG) anticipates that by next year, San Francisco's population will reach 785,900, 
and total jobs within the City will reach 586.950. 3 

San Francisco has historically been an employment center for the greater Bay Area, a region of over 
six million people. San Francisco's workforce consists of residents and commuters, some of whom 
travel great distances to their place of employment. As San Francisco has developed over the last 
20 or 30 years, the supply of housing units in the City has not kept pace with the demand for 
housing, increasing the likelihood that new San Francisco job holders will have to commute for long 
distances, contributing to regional traffic congestion and air quality degradation. 

Compatibility with Existing Zoning and Plans 

Environmental plans and policies are those, like the Bay Area Air Quality Plan, which directly 
address environmental issues and/or contain targets or standards which must be met in order to 
preserve or improve characteristics of the City's physical environment. The current proposed project 
would not obviously or substantially conflict with any such adopted environmental plan or policy. 

The City's General Plan, which provides general policies and objectives to guide land use decisions, 
contains some policies which relate to physical environmental issues. The current project would not 
obviously or substantially conflict with the General Plan. In general, potential conflicts with the 
General Plan are considered by decision makers independently of the environmental review process, 
as part of the decision whether to approve or disapprove a proposed project. Any potential conflict 
not identified here could be considered in that context, and would not alter the physical 
environmental effects of the proposed project. 

In November 1986, the voters of San Francisco approved Proposition M, the Accountable Planning 
Initiative, which added Section 101. 1 to the City Planning Code to establish eight Priority Policies. 
These policies are: preservation and enhancement of neighborhood-serving retail uses; protection 
of neighborhood character, preservation and enhancement of affordable housing; discouragement 
of commuter automobiles; protection of industrial and service land uses from commercial office 
development and enhancement of resident employment and business ownership; maximization of 
earthquake preparedness; landmark and historic building preservation; and protection of open space. 
Prior to issuing a permit for any project which requires an Initial Study under CEQA or adopting any 



Association of Bay Area Governments. Projections '98. Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area to the Year 2020, 
December 1997 

Page 4 1999 1 78E -- Jobs-Housing Linkage 



zoning ordinance or development agreement, the City is required to find that the proposed project 

is consistent with the Priority Policies. | 

Environmental Effects 

The proposed project is a piece of legislation that would have no immediate physicaJ consequences, 
and would result in the payment of fees from developers of commercial projects above a certain size 
to housing developers or to the City for the purpose of affordable housing construction. While it can 
be assumed that the imposition of development fees as a result of the proposed Jobs-Housing 
Linkage Program may affect the cost of commerciaJ development in San Francisco, and therefore 
potentially affect rental rates and the value of commerciaJ properties, these potential economic 
consequences would not in themselves be considered significant environmental impacts. The focus 
of the analysis presented below, therefore,- is (1) whether the increased costs of commercial 
development attributable to the new program would .esult in unplanned growth outside of the City, 
with significant environmental consequences; or (2) whether the affordable housing produced under 
the program would result in significant environmental impacts within City boundaries. 

Location of Commercial Development 

Land and development costs within the center city, including to some extent costs attributable to 
exactions such as the original OAHPP and the proposed Jobs-Housing Linkage Program, have 
historically influenced the location of commercial development in the region. According to ABAG, 
the major shift in jobs from San Francisco to oudying areas that occurred in the early 1980s, was a A 

result of rising office rents in San Francisco in the late 1970s and early 1980s (interestingly, before ' 

the OAHPP was adopted in 1985). ABAG projects that this shift to suburban locations will continue 
in the future, and that "the costs of operations, including the comparative cost of office space with 
other parts of the region will be a factor in determining job locations in the long run." 4 

It would be entirely speculative, however, to suggest some precise relationship between the existing 
OAHPP and office development location since 1985. This is because the exactions represent a small 
percentage of overall development costs, and because there are many other factors that contribute 
to development and locational decisions. These other factors include the location of housing, the 
availability of transportation infrastructure, the presence of businesses and services, and even the 
desirability of a San Francisco address. The influence of these and other factors is evidenced by the 
City's experiences during the late 1980s, when many office projects were approved in the City, 
despite the imposition of affordable housing requirements, and during the early 1990s, when office 
growth slowed because of a nationwide recession. In fact, some evidence suggests that costs 
imposed by the existing OAHPP constitute a negligible factor among many that influence the timing 
and location of office development. For example, there was no rush to propose office projects in San 
Francisco when the OAHPP expired briefly in 1994. 



Ibid . p 163. 
Page 5 1999 178E -- Jobs-Housing Linkage 



It is reasonable to anticipate that the proposed Jobs-Housing Linkage Program would affect the 
location of hotel, retail, and entertainment developments similar to the way the OAHPP affected the 
location of office developments since 1985. In other words, the imposition of additional fees 
affecting large commercial development projects (hotels, entertainment venues, and retail 
developments) may contribute to decisions of developers to locate within the City, but not to the 
extent that such development would not occur, or to the extent that any substantial growth outside 
the City would occur as a result. In fact, locational decisions regarding these new commercial uses 
are likely to be more dependant on market factors such as San Francisco's desirability as a tourist 
destination, and San Francisco's concentration of well educated consumers, than on fees that would 
constitute a relatively insignificant portion of overall development costs. 

Whatever the relationship between the proposed exactions and the locational decisions of 
commercial developers, it should be notecj. that commercial development outside of San Francisco 
is now a planned aspect of the region's growth, and commercial development outside of San 
Francisco is subject to planning review and CEQA analysis by local jurisdictions. 

Affordable Housing Production 

Since 1980, about 20,610 dwelling units, including 5,500 affordable housing units, have been 
constructed in the City. The affordable housing units have been constructed as a result of a variety 
of federal, State, and local programs, including (since 1985) the OAHPP. On average, these 
combined programs result in new construction of about 365 affordable units per year (as well as 
rehabilitation and affordability preservation of exisitng units). With the proposed expansion of 
exaction fees, unit production would likely increase somewhat, although it is difficult to predict by 
how much. The increase would depend on what portion of projected job growth in hotel, 
entertainment, and retail sectors will be contained within facilities exceeding proposed threshold 
Sizes. 

As a rough estimate of the annual housing production that could be attributable to the proposed Jobs- 
Housing Linkage Program, all applications for environmental review submitted to the Planning 
Department in 1998 were reviewed, and potential exactions for non-office development projects 
were calculated. If it is assumed that one year of applications represent about a year's worth of 
approved projects (a very conservative assumption, since some projects take more than one year for 
review, and some are not ultimately approved and constructed), then the program would result in 
about 56 dwelling units (if project sponsors elected to construct housing) or about $2. 1 million of 
in lieu fees annually (if sponsors pay fees) from non-office uses. When combined with the average 
number of affordable units produced per year as a result of existing office-space exactions and other 
affordable housing programs, this would result in production of about 421 affordable dwelling units 
per year. 

While the location of the future housing generated cannot be predicted, any increase in housing 
production resulting from the ordinance would accommodate demand from workers that would 
occupy new commercial space, and would be constructed within the urban environment of San 
Francisco. Such housing would accommodate planned growth in the region, and would not itself 

Page 6 1999. I78E -- Jobs-Housing Linkage 



stimulate growth, since it would only be constructed after new commercial development occurs. 
Such housing would also fall within amounts analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report prepared 
for 1990 amendments to the Resident Element of the San Francisco General Plan. 5 

New housing would have impacts whether it was built within San Francisco or elsewhere in the 
region, but impacts would generally be less if the units were built within the City, since regional 
impacts on transportation, energy, and air quality would improve with shorter commute distances. 
Locally, new housing development within San Francisco could increase local transit demand, and 
congestion near new housing developments. Within San Francisco's urban context, these impacts 
would be unlikely to reach levels where they would be considered significant under CEQA. In 
recognition of this, the State CEQA Guidelines provide a specific exemption for affordable housing 
projects (Section 15280), and for "in-fill" development projects within the City limits which are 
consistent with General Plan and zoning provisions, and which meet certain other conditions 
(Section 15332). Even in light of these exemptions, however, individual affordable housing 
developments that could be proposed using fees from the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program would be 
subject to Planning Department review and permitTing. During this review process, project-specific 
impacts would be assessed, and more extensive environmental analysis would be performed if 
potentially significant impacts could occur. 

For all of the above reasons, it is clear that the proposed ordinance would not result in substantial, 
unanticipated growth, or result in any significant effect on the environment. No mitigation measures 
are therefore required. 



San Francisco Planning Department. Environmental Impact Report Regarding 1990 Amendments to the Residence 
Element of (he Master Plan of the City and County of San Francisco. Case No 90.87E. A copy of this EIR is available for review 
at the San Francisco Planning Department. 1660 Mission Street 



Page 7 



, ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHFCKT TST 

' (Initial Study Checklist) 

File No: 1999.178E Title: 1 999. 1 78E: Jobs-Housing Linkage Program 

Street Address: Citvwide Assessor's Block/Lot: Citvwide 

Initial Study Prepared by: Hillary E. Gitelman ; 



Noj 
COMPATIBILI TY WITH EXISTING ZONIN G AND PLANS Applicable Discussed 

1 ) Discuss any variances, special authorizations, or changes pro- 
posed to the City Planning Code or Zoning Map, if applicable. _X_ 

2) Discuss any conflicts with any adopted en.viwnmental 

plans and goals of the City or Region, if applicable. X X 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS - Could the project ; 

1) Land Use YES NO DISCUSSED 

(a) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 

established community? _ _X_ 

(b) Have any substantial impact upon the existing 

character of the vicinity? _ _X_ 

2) Visual Quality 

(a) Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? _ X 

(b) Substantially degrade or obstruct any scenic view or 

vista now observed from public areas? _ _X_ 

(c) Generate obtrusive light or glare substantially 

impacting other properties? _ _X_ 

3) Population 

(a) Induce substantial growth or concentration of population? _ _X_ _ 

(b) Displace a large number of people (involving either 

housing or employment)? _ _X_ _ 

(c) Create a substantial demand for additional housing in San 

Francisco, or substantially reduce the housing supply? _ _X_ _ 

4) Transportation/Circulation 

(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial 

in relation to the existing traffic load and 

capacity of the street system? _ X _ 

(b) Interfere with existing transportation systems, 

causing substantial alterations to circulation 

patterns or major traffic hazards? _ _X_ _ 

(c) Cause a substantial increase in transit demand which cannot be 

accommodated by existing or proposed transit capacity? _ _X_ _ 

(d) Cause a substantial increase in parking demand which 

cannot be accommodated by existing parking facilities? _ X _ 



age 8 






X£S NQ DISCUSSED 



5) Noise 

(a) Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for 

adjoining areas? _ X 

(b) Violate Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards, if applicable? _ _X_ 

(c) Be substantially impacted by existing noise levels? _ _X_ 

6) Air Oualitv/Climate 

(a) Violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute 

substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? _ _X_ 

(b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 

concentrations? _ X 

(c) Permeate its vicinity with objectionable odors? _ X 

(d) Alter wind, moisture or temperature (includi g sun shading 

effects) so as to substantially affect public areas, or 

change the climate either in (he community or region? _ _X_ 

7) Utilities/Public Services 

(a) Breach published national, state or local standards 

relating to solid waste or litter control' 7 _ X 

(b) Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new 

development? _ X 

(c) Substantially increase demand for schools, recreation 

or other public facilities? _ _X_ 

(d) Require major expansion of power, water, or communications 

facilities? _ _X_ 

8) Biology 

(a) Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of 

animal or plant or the habitat of the species 1 _ X 

(b) Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife or 

plants, or interfere substantially with the movement 

of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? _ X 

(c) Require removal of substantial numbers of mature, scenic trees? _ _X_ 

9) Geologv/ToDographY 

(a) Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards 

(slides, subsidence, erosion and liquefaction). _ X 

lb) Change substantially the topography or any unique 

geologic or physical features of the site? _ _X_ 

10) Water 

(a) Substantially degrade water quality, or contaminate a 

public water supply? _ _X_ 

(b) Substantially degrade or deplete ground water resources, or 

interfere substantially with ground water recharge? _ X 

(c) Cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation? _ X 



Page 9 



11) Energy/Natural Resources 

(a) Encourage activities which result in the use of 

large amounts of fuel, water, or energy, or use 
these in a wasteful manner? 

(b) Have a substantial effect on the potential use, 

extraction, or depletion of a natural resource? 



YES NQ DISCUSSED 

_ X_ _ 

X 



12) Hazards 

(a) 



(b) 



(c) 



Create a potential public health hazard or involve the use, pro- 
duction or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to 
people or animal or plant populations in the area affected? 

Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency 
evacuation plans? fc 

Create a potentially substantial fife hazard? 



13) Cultural 

(a) Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeo- 

Logical site or a property of historic or cultural signif- 
icance to a community or ethnic or social group; or a 
paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study? 

(b) Conflict with established recreational, educational, 

religious or scientific uses of the area? 

(c) Conflict with the preservation of buildings subject 
j to the provisiens of Article 10 or 

| Article 1 1 of the City Planning Code? 

C. OTHER 

Require approval and/or permits from City Departments other than 
Department of City Planning or Bureau of Building Inspection, 
or from Regional, State or Federal Agencies? 

D. MITIGATION MEASURES 

1 ) Could the project have significant effects if mitigation 
measures are not included in the project? 

2) Are all mitigation measures necessary to eliminate significant 
effects included in the project? 



YES NO DISCUSSED 

-X- X_ 

YES NQ NZ4 DISCUSSED 



Page 10 



E. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE YJ&S N.O. DISCUSSED 

I ) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality 

of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of 

a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife 

population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten 

to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the 

number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered 

plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the 

major periods of California history or pre-history? X 

2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, 

to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? _ _X_ 

3) Does the project have possible environmental effects which 

are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 

(Analyze in the light of past projects, other current 

projects, and probable future projects.) _ X 

4) Would the project cause substantial adverse effects on 

human beings, either directly or indirect'y? _ _X_ 

F. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY 

X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE 
DECLARATION will be prepared by the Department of City Planning. 

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WELL NOT 

significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures, numbers , in the discussion have been 

included as pan of the proposed project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 



< 



■J 



I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environrp^nt, and an ENVIRONMENTAL 
IMPACT REPORT is required. 




HILLARY E. GCPELMAN 
Environmental Review Officer 

for 

Gerald G. Green 
Director of Planning 
DATE: April 3. 1999 



Page 1 1 



File No. 000069 Committee Item No.. 

Board Item No. 



COMMITTEE/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST* 

Committee Finance and Labor Date 2/9/00 

Board of Supervisors Meeting Date 

Cmte Board 

□ □ Motion 

gf □ Resolution 

□ □ Ordinance 

□ □ Legislative Digest 

ffl □ Budget Analyst Report 

□ Legislative Analyst Report 

gj □ Department/Agency Cover Letter and/or Report 

□ □ Public Correspondence 

□ □ Exceeds 20 pages; see file to review 

□ □ Sent to Board in advance of agenda preparation; 

available for review at reception desk, City Hall, Room 244 

□ □ Other 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

(Use back side if additional space is needed) 

Late Agenda Items (documents received too late for distribution to the 
Committee Members) 



□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 



Completed by: Gail Johnson Date 2/7/00 

Date 



"This list reflects the explanatory documents provided 



Packet Contents Checklist 2/3/00 



Cmte Board 

□ □ , 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ . 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ . 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ „ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ a 

□ a 

□ a 

a d 

□ a 

a □ 

□ d 

a a 

a □ 

□ a 

a a 

□ a 



« 



Packet Contents Checklist 



FILE NO. 000069 RESOLUTION NO. 



[Acceptance of Settlement Funds] 

AUTHORIZING WITHDRAWAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF TOBACCO SETTLEMENT MONIES 

PURSUANT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

WHEREAS, The Attorney General of the State of California and representatives of a 
number of California Counties and Cities, including San Francisco, entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), which allocates a portion of settlement proceeds 
stemming from litigation against various manufacturers of tobacco products; and 

WHEREAS, this Board has heretofore approved participation in the settlement under 
the terms and conditions memorialized in the MOU pursuant to Ordinance No. 402-98 finally 
passed by this Board on December 21 , 1998, and approved by the Mayor of the City and 
County of San Francisco on December 24, 1998; and 

WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter "San Francisco ") 
wishes to receive its allocated share of settlement proceeds as provided for and set forth in 
the MOU; and 

WHEREAS, San Francisco will, in consideration for receiving its portion of the 
settlement proceeds as allocated to cities and counties in the MOU, execute the Agreement 
Regarding Interpretation of MOU and the Release, in a form to be approved by the J.C.C.P. 
4041 Court; now, therefore, be it 

RESOLVED BY THIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF 
SAN FRANCISCO AS FOLLOWS: 

Section 1 . The Board hereby finds and declares that the above recitals are true and 
correct. 

Section 2 . This Board hereby authorizes the acceptance and deposit of San 
Francisco's portion of the settlement proceeds as allocated to cities and counties in the MOU 
/// 

CITY ATTORNEY 

board of supervisors Page 1 

1/7/00 

n \ipclpn>|Viw#»1on\l»Qgn»Jurtdve4 doc , 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 



Section 3 . This Board hereby authorizes the verification by the Attorney General's 
Office of all banking information provided to effectuate the acceptance of the settlement 
proceeds. 

Section 4 . The following officers or their successors in office shall be authorized to 
direct the transfer of San Francisco's settlement funds on behalf the city and county 



Louise H. Renne 
City Attorney 



(SIGNATURE) 



Susan Leal 
Treasurer 



Edward Harrington 
Controller 




Section 5 . All notices from the Office of the Attorney General to San Francisco 
regarding tobacco settlement funds shall be sent to following person/agency: 
Name of Person/Agency: Edward Harrington 

Title: 



Controller 



Address: 



Telephone: 

Facsimile: 

E-Mail: 



City Hall, Room 316 



#1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 



San Francisco, CA 94102 



(415)554-7500 



(415)554-7466 



ed_harrington@ci.sf.ca us. 



' 






Section 6 . The officers, employees and agents of San Francisco are hereby authorized 
and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and 
/// 



CITY ATTORNEY 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



Page 2 

1/7/00 






ail documents which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and 
comply with the terms and intent of this resolution. 

Section 7 . This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. 



CITY ATTORNEY 

board of supervisors Page 3 

1/7/00 



i UpclpfX)iVni*«1onJ»gufi* * u rviv*\ HOC 



rh 



City and County of San Francisco 



Louise H. Renne 
City Attorney 



Office of the City Attorney 




MEMORANDUM 



Michelle W. Sexton 
Deputy City Attorney 

DtRECT Dial ( 4 1 5) 554-4 708 
E-MAIL MCHELLE_SEXTON@ci.sfCO. US 



i 



TO: 

FROM: 

DATE 
RE: 



Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 

Michelle W Sexton 
Deputy City Attorney, 

January 7, 2000 

Resolution Authorizing the Acceptance of Tobacco Settlement Funds 



Please find attached an original (together with four copies) of a Resolution titled 
"'.Acceptance of Settlement Funds." 

The Resolution authorizes the Cit> to accept funds received as a result of the settlement 
of litigation against various manufacturers of tobacco products. 



' 



City Hall- 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Shte234 • San Francisco, California 94 102-4682 
Reception: (415) 554-4700 • Facsimile: (415)554-4755 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 00-0069 



Departments: 



City Attorney 

Treasurer 

Controller 



Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Resolution authorizing withdrawal and acceptance 
of tobacco settlement monies pursuant to the 
Memorandum of Understanding. 

On December 21, 1998, the Board of Supervisors 
approved a settlement agreement with the 
Attorney General of the State of California and 
representatives of various other California cities 
and counties stemming from the litigation against 
various manufacturers of tobacco products 
(Ordinance No. 402-98). As part of this settlement 
agreement, the City entered into a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) with these other cities and 
counties which allocates the settlement proceeds 
from this tobacco litigation case. 

The proposed resolution would (a) authorize the 
City to receive tobacco settlement fund proceeds 
through the withdrawal of such funds from the 
National Tobacco Settlement Escrow Account and 
(b) authorize the City to accept such tobacco 
settlement funds in accordance with the settlement 
proceeds as allocated to the cities and counties in 
the MOU, previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors. The proposed resolution would also 
authorize the verification by the Attorney General's 
Office of all banking information provided to 
effectuate the acceptance of such settlement 
proceeds. In addition, this resolution would 
specifically name Louise Renne, the City Attorney, 
Susan Leal, the Treasurer, and Edward 
Harrington, the Controller as the officers of the 
City (or their successors in office) authorized to 
direct the transfer of San Francisco's settlement 
funds from the National Escrow Account to the 
City. 

1. According to Mr. Owen Clements of the City 
Attorney's Office, the proposed resolution will 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



permit the City to begin receiving the tobacco 
settlement funds that have become available from 
the National Tobacco Settlement Escrow Account 
(Escrow Account). Mr. Clements reports that there 
are already two payments that have been made to 
the Escrow Account for San Francisco. The first 
payment was for approximately $7,366,000 and the 
second payment was for approximately $6,436,000, 
for a current total balance approximately 
$13,802,000 due to San Francisco. According to Mr. 
Clements, the City is currently receiving 
approximately 5 percent annual interest on the 
Escrow Account, calculated on a daily basis. In 
addition, Mr. Clements notes that an additional 
estimated $10,000,000 payment will be made to the 
Escrow Account in April of 2000 for San Francisco 
and another approximately $17,800,000 payment 
will be received in 2001, in installments in January 
and April. 

2. Mr. Clements advises that the City originally 
projected receiving a total of approximately $586 
million over 25 years from the Tobacco Escrow 
Account. However, Mr. Clements notes that since 
these original projections, there has been an 
estimated 14 percent decline in the volume of 
tobacco sales in the United States, and that 
payments to the Escrow Account are partly 
dependent on national tobacco sales. Therefore, Mr 
Clements now advises that the City is estimated to 
receive approximately $500 million over the next 
25 years. However, Mr. Clements cautions that 
further changes in domestic tobacco sales, coupled 
with future inflationary adjustments will further 
vary the actual amount of revenues paid to the 
Escrow Account for San Francisco. 

3. According to Mr. Clements, recent lawsuits that 
have been filed challenging the subject Tobacco 
Settlement award are not expected to have any 
material affect on the outcome of the payments for 
the City and County of San Francisco. 

4. Mr. Clements advises that under the proposed 
resolution, any two of the three specified 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



individuals cited in the proposed resolution (i.e., 
City Attorney, Treasurer and Controller) can act on 
behalf of the City to submit instructions to the 
escrow agent, through the State, to direct the 
transfer of San Francisco's settlement funds from 
the Escrow Account to the City. 

5. According to Ms. Michelle Sexton of the City 
Attorney's Office, before any of the subject tobacco 
settlement funds can be expended by the City, such 
funds will require appropriation approval by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

6. The Budget Analyst notes that Proposition A, 
approved by the San Francisco voters in November 
of 1999 requires that all tobacco settlement monies 
received by the City, after $1 million is set aside 
each year for smoking education and prevention 
programs, would be used to pay for construction of 
a new Laguna Honda facility. A proposed ordinance 
(File 00-0068), that is scheduled to be calendared 
for the February 16, 2000 Finance and Labor 
Committee Meeting, would establish a new Special 
Fund, the Tobacco Settlement Revenue Account to 
finance the costs of the acquisition, improvement, 
construction and/or reconstruction of a health care 
assisted living and/or continuing care facility to 
replace Laguna Honda Hospital and would 
establish a new segregated sub-account, the 
Tobacco Education and Control Revenue Sub- 
Account for tobacco education and control purposes. 

7. Ms. Peg Stevenson of the Controller's Office 
reports that if the proposed subject resolution (File 
00-0069) is approved and the City withdraws and 
accepts the proposed tobacco settlement funds but 
the proposed pending ordinance (File 00-0068) is 
not approved by the time the City receives the 
tobacco settlement funds, the Controller's Office 
would deposit the received tobacco settloment funds 
into the City's General Fund. Once the new Special 
Fund and/or subaccounts are established, the 
tobacco settlement funds, plus the accrued interest 
earnings on those funds, would be transferred into 
the new Special Fund and/or subaccounts. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



, 



. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



File No. 000181 Committee Item No. 

Board Item No. 



COMMITTEE/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST* 
Committee Finance and Labor Date 2/9/00 
Board of Supervisors Meeting Date 



Cmte Board 

□ □ Motion 

□ □ Resolution 

□ □ Ordinance 

□ □ Legislative Digest 

gf □ Budget Analyst Report 

□ □ Legislative Analyst Report 

^f □ Department/Agency Cover Letter and/or Report 

Q Q Public Correspondence 

□ □ Exceeds 20 pages; see file to review 

□ □ Sent to Board in advance of agenda preparation; 

available for review at reception desk, City Hall, Room 244 

□ □ Other 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

(Use back side if additional space is needed) 

Late Agenda Items (documents received too late for distribution to the 
Committee Members) 



□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 



Completed by: Gail Johnson Date 2/7/00 

Date 



"This list reflects the explanatory documents provided 



Packet Contents Checklist 



Cmte Board 

□ □ — 

□ □ _ 

□ □ — 

□ □ — 

□ □ _ 

□ □ — 

□ □ _ 

□ □ 

D □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

an 

an 

□ a 

□ □ 

an 

an 

□ a 

□ □ 

□ a 

an 

□ □ 

□ a 

□ □ 

an 

an 

□ □ 

□ □ 



, 



• 



Packet Contents Checklist 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 00-0181 

Department: 

Item: 



Treasure Island Development Authority 

Hearing to consider the release of $500,000 reserved funds 
for the Treasure Island Project for a contract with 
Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., to perform environmental 
monitoring of the U.S. Navy's environmental clean-up 
program at Treasure Island, through the end of FY 1999- 
2000. 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Although the subject hearing requests release of $500,000 
in reserved funds, the Treasure Island Development 
Authority has subsequently revised this request to release 
$200,000 of the $500,000 reserved funds. 

General Fund monies of $500,000 appropriated and placed 
on reserve by the Board of Supervisors in the FY 1999-2000 
Treasure Island Project budget. 

During the FY 1999-2000 budget review, the Board of 
Supervisors placed $500,000 on reserve, pending the 
establishment of a contract for environmental monitoring of 
the Navy's environmental clean-up at Treasure Island. The 
Treasure Island Development Authority is now proposing to 
expend $200,000 of the subject funds on a contract with 
Geomatrix, Consultants, Inc. to provide oversight of the 
U.S. Navy's environmental clean up program on Treasure 
Island. The requested monies would fund oversight 
activities by Geomatrix through June of 2000. According to 
Mr. Robert Mahoney of the Treasure Island Development 
Authority, Geomatrix has already incurred obligations of 
$27,311.75 of the proposed $175,000 contract with the City 
for the period from November 26, 1999 through December 
30, 1999 (Attachment I). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Budget: The summary budget for the proposed contract with 

Geomatrix is as follows: 

Scheduled Technical Meetings $ 15,000 

Supplemental Technical Meeting 40,000 

Document Review 45,000 

Interim Data Review 12,500 

Field Oversight and Sample 10,000 

Project Tracking 12.000 

Subtotal $134,500 

Contingency (30.1 percent) 40,500 

Total $175,000 

Attachment II, provided by the Treasure Island 
Development Authority, provides budget details to support 
the $175,000 request, and describes the specific activities 
and estimated costs associated with the environmental 
review and remediation activities noted above. Attachment 
III, provided by the Department of Public Works (DPW), 
contains details to support the budget noted above, 
including the hours and hourly rate for each of the specified 
activities. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Steve Mullinnix of DPW, Geomatrix 

was selected by the Department of Public Works (DPW) as 
an "as needed" consultant for environmental review and 
remediation activities at Treasure Island through a 
Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Attachment IV, 
provided by DPW, is a list of all firms which submitted 
proposals for this contract and the ratings received by each 
firm. Mr. Mullinnix states that Geomatrix, which was 
selected because of its experience with base closure work, 
would provide a third party evaluation of the Navy's 
environmental remediation program for former Treasure 
Island Naval Station. 

2. Mr. Mullinix states that Geomatrix would provide the 
specified services on an as-needed basis and would be 
reimbursed for the services performed. Although the 
Treasure Island Development Authority has requested 
$200,000 to be released, the total estimated cost of the 
contract, including a 30.1 percent contingency, is $175,000. 
Therefore, the request should be reduced by $25,000 
($200,000 less $175,000). However, according to Mr. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Mullinnix, contingencies in DPW construction contracts 
generally range from 5% to 15%. Mr. Mullinix states that 
consulting contracts do not normally contain a contingency 
but, as explained in Attachment II, the proposed contract 
contains a contingency because unforeseen activities, such 
as additional investigations and technical meetings, are 
expected to result from the collection of new field data. The 
Budget Analyst also recommends that the amount of funds 
budgeted for contingencies be reduced by $20,325, from 
$40,500, or 30.1 percent, to $20,175. That would result in 
a 15 percent contingency instead of a 30.1 percent 
contingency. As a result, the total estimated cost of the 
contract should be reduced by $45,325 ($25,000 to provide 
for the amount needed, consistent with the details 
provided by the Department, plus $20,325 to reduce the 
amount provided for contingencies), from $200,000 to 
$154,675. 

3. As previously noted, the total Reserve for this project in 
the FY 1999-2000 budget is $500,000. 

4. Subsequent to the Budget Analyst providing the 
Authority with a draft version of the Budget Analyst's 
report, the Authority provided an explanation for the 
purpose of obtaining an additional $25,000 in excess of the 
$175,000 budget initially provided. The Authority states 
that the additional $25,000 would be used for related 
environmental issues (such as potential geotechnical and 
dredging consultation) that may require consultation 
expertise from firms other than Geomatrix. The Budget 
Analyst recommends that the subject $25,000 remain on 
reserve, pending selection of a contractor and submission of 
budget details for that $25,000 request. 

5. As noted above, the Authority has already incurred 
$27,311.75 in obligations, out of the proposed $175,000 
budget for Geomatrix. Because such obligations have been 
incurred prior to Board of Supervisors approval of the 
release of the requested $200,000 reserved funds, the 
Budget Analyst considers that this subject request is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendations: 1. Reduce the amount of the requested release of reserved 
funds by $45,325, from $200,000 to $154,675, and continue 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

91 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 






to reserve $345,325 ($500,000 less $154,675), in accordance 
with Comment No. 2 above. ™ 

2. Because obligations have been incurred by the 
contractor, prior to obtaining Board of Supervisors 
approval, the Budget Analyst considers that the release of 
the balance of $154,675 is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



FEB 03 2000 15=50 FR CTY & CNTY TRSE ISLND415 274 0299 TO 92520461 P. 02/03 

Attachment I 



Office of the Mayor 
san francisco 

Treasure Island Project 

410 Avenue or Palms. Blog #1 

Treasure Island 

San Francisco. CA 94130 

(415) 274-0660 

FAX (41 S) 274-0299 




Page 1 of 2 
Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 



MEMORANDUM 



February 3, 2000 



TO: 



FROM: 



RE: 



Board of Supervisors' Budget Analyst 
Attention: Severin Campbell 

Eila Arbuckle, Finance Manager 
Treasure Island Development Authority 

Request for Release of Reserved Funds for Environmental Monitoring 
February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



The Treasure Island Development Authority (Authority) requests release of $200,000 of the 
$500,000 appropriated and placed on reserve by the Board of Supervisors in the FY 1999-2000 
Treasure Island Project Budget pending the establishment of a contract for environmental 
monitoring of the Navy's environmental clean-up of Treasure Island. The sources of the General 
Fund monies are revenues earned by the Treasure Island Project from facility rentals. The 
Authority is now proposing to expend $200,000 of these funds: 

• $175,000 on a contract with Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. to provide oversight of the U.S. 
Navy's environmental clean up program on former naval station Treasure Island, and 

• $25,000 for use in related environmental issues (such as potential geotechnical and dredging 
consultation) that may require consultation expertise from firms other than Geomatrix. 

The City and County of San Francisco (City) established the Treasure Island Development 
Authority (Authority) to manage the conversion of former Naval Station Treasure Island from 
Navy use to civilian use. As part of its transfer responsibilities, the Navy is undertaking an 
environmental remediation program to meet federal requirements that an environmentally clean 
base is transferred. One of the Authority's chief responsibilities is to assure that the Navy's 
environmental remediation activities achieve the agreed clean-up level for planned civilian use. 

In FY 1998- 1999, in order to secure an independent analysis of the thoroughness and 
defensibility of the environmental work conducted by the Navy, and to assure the compatibility 
of proposed remedial activities with the Authority's redevelopment plans, the Authority, through 
the Department of Public Works Site Assessment and Remediation Division's existing contract 
with Geomatrix for as needed services, retained Geomatrix as an independent consultant to 
oversee the Navy's environmental remediation program. The Authority and DPW have 






FEB 03 2000 15=50 FR CTY i. CNTY TRSE 1SLND415 274 0299 TO 92520461 P. 03/03 

Attachment I 
Page 2 of 2 



negotiated a contract extension with Geomarrix, and DPW has secured approval of such a 
contract extension from the Department of Human Resources as required. 

According to Mr. Robert Mahoney, Deputy Executive Director of the Authority, Geomarrix 
incurred obligations of $27,311.75 for the period November 26, 1999 through December 30, 
1999. Prior to incurring these obligations, Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Steve Mullinix of DPW's Site 
Assessment and Remediation Division discussed the status of funds on reserve for monitoring 
the Navy's environmental remediation with Gcomatrix. Given that at least four meetings had 
previously been scheduled for December and the significant nsk to the project schedule if the 
meetings had to be postponed, Geomatrix agreed to proceed pending the request to the Board of 
Supervisors for release of reserved funds. 

The meetings scheduled for December 1999 included discussions of: 

• Field Sampling Plans (FSPs) for Buildings 1205/1207, 1244. and 1251/1253 

• Field Sampling Plans for Debris Disposal Areas C and D 

• Field Sampling Plans for the Marina (Clipper Cove) 

• Field Sampling Plans for Corrective Action Plan (CAP) sites 

• Field Sampling Plans for fuel line investigations 

• Strategic project planning. 

The estimated cost of the contract with Geomarrix recommended by the Treasure Island 
Development Authority is $175,000, which includes $40,500 or 23% for contingencies. Mr. 
Mullinix states that DPW construction contracts generally provide contingencies ranging from 
5% to 15%, and consulting contracts generally do not provide contingency budgets. However, as 
explained in Attachment I, the proposed contract contains a significant contingency because 
unforeseen activities, such as additional investigations and technical meetings, arc expected to 
result from the collection of new field data. Mr. Mahoney and Mr Mullinix strongly urge that 
the Treasure Island Development Authority be provided with the flexibility required to manage 
efficiently the monitoring of the Navy's environmental remediation program by approving the 
full contingency budget in the Geomarrix contract and by providing $25,000 for potential 
specialized consultation services. 



24 



** TOTAL PAGE. 03 ** 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 4 

TABLE 1 

BUDGET ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR 
ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTATION SERVICES 

NAVAL STATION TREASURE ISLAND 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



Task 


Estimated Cost 


Task 1 : Regulatory Scheduled Technical Meetings 


S 15,000 


Task 2: Supplemental Technical Meetings 


S 40,000 


Task 3: Document Review 


S 45,000 


Task 4: Interim Data Review 


S 12,500 


Task 5: Field Oversight and Sample Collection 


S 10,000 


Task 6: Project Tracking 


S 12,000 


Task 7: Contingency 


S 40,500 


TOTAL: 


SI 75,000 





INVOICING 

Geomatrix will submit monthly bills to the attention of Steve Mullinix at the Department of 
Public Works, Bureau of Construction Management, SAR, 1680 Mission Street, San Francisco 
CA. These invoices will be itemized by task, and within each task total costs per staff level will 
be identified. Expenses also will be identified and supported by copies of original invoices. 
Meetings will be identified by subject, date and attendees. 



C \N1y Documents Conmcts^Geomainx gco»or'» doc 



25 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 4 

WORK PLAN 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTATION SERVICES 

NAVAL STATION TREASURE ISLAND 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



This Work Plan outlines the specific activities Geomatrix will perform to provide a third party 
evaluation on the Navy's environmental remediation program for former naval station Treasure 
Island as requested by the Treasure Island Development Authority (Authority). The Authority 
seeks to: 

• Secure an independent analysis of the thoroughness and defensibility of the Navy's 
environmental remediation work 

• Assure the compatibility of the Navy's remedial activities with the Authority's 
redevelopment plans. 



SCOPE OF WORK 

The primary scope of work includes seven tasks: 

Task I: Attend and participate in regularly scheduled technical meetings 

Task 2: Attend and participate in supplemental technical meetings 

Task 3: Review and provide written comments on technical documents 

Task 4: Review interim data from field programs to assess data quality, and create 

presentations (such as tables or maps) to summarize the field data, and'or compare the 

field data to appropriate screening criteria. 
Task 5: Oversee the Navy's sample collection or undertake independent sample collection 
Task 6: Track Navy's activities base-wide and report weekly to the Authority 
Task 8: Contingency 



Task 1: Regularly Scheduled Technical Meetings - Estimated Cost: $15,000 

This task entails attending regularly scheduled BRAC Closure Team (BCT) or Restoration 
Advisory Boari (RAE) meetings, including preparation time and reviewing and commenting on 
meeting minutes. For purposes of this cost estimate, it is assumed that the consultant will attend 
S BCT meetings and 2 RAB meetings (average cost of SI, 500 per meeting). 

Task 2: Supplemental Technical Working Meetings -- Estimated Cost: S40.000 
This task entails attending supplemental technical working meetings that are scheduied to 
follow-up on outstanding issues identified in the monthly 3CT or RAB meetings. These 
meetings also may be related to assisting the City with nsk communication. This task involve 
preparation time and reviewing and commenting on meeting minutes; however, the preparation 
time for these meetings is expected to be longer than for the regularly scheduled meetings. 
Based on the number of supplemental technical meetings scheduled during the previous 6-month 



vurtierus'Comrocis'Geomamx eeowork doc - , 



Attachment II 
Page 3 of 4 

period, it is assumed that the consultant will attend 3 meetings per month or a total of 24 of these 
meetings (average cost of 51,675 per meeting). 

Task 3: Document Review - Estimated Cost: 545,000 

This task entails reviewing work plans, reports, and other documents prepared by the Navy or 
other parties (e.g., regulatory review comments), preparation of a draft letter summarizing the 
comments for the Authority's review and preparation of a final letter incorporating the 
Authority's comments. The following 18 documents are scheduled to be issued and reviewed 
between November 1999 and June 2000 based on the schedule of reports provided by the Navy 
at the November 1 , 1999 BCT meeting or as modified in subsequent meetings. 

Draft Pilot Test Technical Memorandum (TM) for Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Sites 

Final Pilot Test TM for CAP Sites 

Draft Final Field Sampling and Analysis Plan (FSAP) for CAP Sites 

Final FSAP for CAP Sites 

Draft Focused Investigation TM for CAP Sites 

Final Focused Investigation TM for CAP Sites 

Final Fuel Line Remedial Investigation/Corrective Action Plan (RI/CAP) Work Plan 

Draft Fuel Line RI/CAP Report 

Draft Final Phase 2a Site Supplemental Environmental Baseline Survey (SEBS) 

Draft Letter Report for Building 1207/1209 Lead Removal Action 

Final Letter Report for Building 1207/1209 Lead Removal Action 

Draft Field Sampling Plan (FSP) for Elementary School Area 

Final FSP for Elementary School Area 

Draft FSP for Buildings 1205/1207, 1244, 1251/1253, and Debris Disposal Areas (DDAs) C 

andD 

Final FSP for Buildings 1205/1207, 1244, 1251/1253, and Debris Disposal .Areas (DDAs) C 

andD 

Draft FSP for DDAs A and B 

Final FSP for DDAs A and B 

Final Removal Site Evaluation/Action Memorandum (RSE/AM) for Building 1 133 Removal 

Action 

The cost to review and comment on work plans, reports, or other documents is expected to ranse 
from approximately SI, 000 to SI 0,000 per document depending on the amount and complexity 
of the information presented. For purposes of this cost estimate, it is assumed that the cost to 
review each document will average S2,500. 



Task 4: Interim Data Review - Estimated Cost: S12,500 

This task entails reviewing interim data during and immediately following field programs to 
assess the need for additional investigation or expedited remedial action prior to completion of 
an investigation report. This review may include an assessment of data quality, creation of tables 
or maps summarizing the data, and/or comparison of the data to appropriate screening criteria. 
The results of this review may be presented to the Authority verbally or in writing depending on 
the nature of the investigation. For purposes of this cost estimate, it is assumed that the 
consultant will review data from five field programs (i.e., Former Storage Yard; Manner Drue; 
Elementary School; Buildings 1205/1207, 1244, and 1251/1253 and Debris Disposal .Areas C 
and D; Disposal Areas A and B) at an average cost of S2.500 per area. 

C M\ Documenls^Conuacts Gcorruinx ucimorW Joe 

97 



Attachment II 
Page 4 of k 

Task 5: Field Oversight and Sample - Estimated Cost: 510,000 

This task entails field oversight or sample collection to assure the quality of the Navy's work or 
to fill data gaps critical to the Authority's needs that are not addressed by the Navy or required 
by the regulators. Field oversight may be associated with site investigation or removal actions. 
In either case, the consultant will observe field activities to ensure compliance with approved 
work plans (e.g., general quality assurance/quality control, sample number, location, and 
analysis, including confirmation samples if applicable). Sample collecticr may be conducted in 
conjunction with a Navy field effort (split samples) or independently from the Navy's 
environmental program. For purposes of this cost estimate, it is assumed that the consultant will 
oversee one of the Navy's field efforts and conduct one sampling program. 

Task 6: Project Tracking -- Estimated Cost: SI 2,000 

This task entails tracking the Navy's progress on a base-wide basis to ensure that the City's 
needs are met. The consultant will prepare a Project Status Summary on a monthly basis that 
identifies key issues, action items associated with those issues, the party responsible for 
completing the action item, and the date by which the action item will be addressed. The Project 
Status Summary will also include a subset of upcoming reports. Other activities under this task 
may include creation and maintenance of a schedule to facilitate closely tracking the Navy's 
activities (e.g., investigation/removal activities in Site 12). Finally, this task will entail weekly 
progress reports to the City documenting the activities completed and estimated costs for the 
reporting period and costs incurred to date. Project tracking costs are estimated to be SI, 500 per 
month. 

Task 7: Contingency - Estimated Cost: S40.500 

Although the process for completing environmental investigations at NST1 is fairly well defined, 
unforeseen activities inevitably arise as new field data are collected. These activities may 
include additional investigations, which result in additional work plans and reports that require 
review, and additional meetings to address technical issues. The level of effort required to 
addresses these types of unforeseen activities is difficult to estimate, but represented 
approximately 30 percent of the total level of effort expended during the previous 6-month 
period. Therefore, a contingency budget of 30 percent of the total estimated cost for Tasks 1 
through 6 is assumed for purposes of this cost estimate. 



The total estimated cost to complete the above-descnbed Scope of Work is SI 75,000. 



C M> Documents Conirac.s Geomainx geoviyr* Joe 



Feb-03-2000 04:35p« Froa-DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS +1415*377019 Attachm nt IIT 

Page 1 of 4 



ueat for Release of Resarva ~~» Background Information 

ironmental and Civil Engineering Consultation Services for Treasure Island (to be 
vided by Geomatrix Consultants) 

eral Background 

process of conversion of former federal military facilities to civilian use has been a 
plex, expensive and time -consuming task for municipalities and agencies wishing to 
skly develop these former bases. 

base conversion process typically includes environmental issues chat must be resolved in 
isbion that identifies and removes/controls contaminants to allow safe use of parcels for 
sequent occupancy and redevelopment. 

practice, the task of identifying environmental hazards and ensuring cleanup to safe 
sis for eventual occupants is made difficult by tne differing agendas of varying 
ceholders in the reuse process: 

• The Department of Defense wants to spend as little as possible and hopes to 
minimize sampling and cleanup costs 

• While regulatory agencies such aa EPA and state Department of Toxic Substance 
Control often prioritize cleanup to very high standards, the costs of sampling, 
human and environmental risk studies and remediation are not their main concerns 

• Public and special interest groups may have agendas varying from extreme caution 
and concerns over health risks to minimizing cleanups for immediate development 

• Local government wishes to promote development in a safe environment without 
having development restrictions due to partial cleanup of environmental 
concerns . 

:he cleanup and reuse of parcels such as Treasure Island, City staff require assistance 
n specialized consultants to quickly evaluate environmental risks, negotiate with all 
teholders and pursue prompt cleanup and reuse. 

natrix Consultants has extensive experience in the military base conversion process 
Luding long-term involvement in both the Hunter' s Point Shipyard and Treasure Island 
version process. They have provided excellent service in the past and City staff wishes 
retain their knowledge and experience to help complete the transfer process. 

aente on Qeomatrix Work Plan and Budget Batimate 

k 1 - Participate in regularly scheduled public technical meetings ($15.000) 

matrix staff attend BRAC and RAB community meetings and comment on proposed investigation 
cleanup and reuse issues. 10 meetings <5 estimated $1,500 per meeting. 

imated costs are reasonable given the following staff rates and anticipated level of 
ticipation ($1,667.25 TD) : 

Principal (occasional, 10 hours) $165-$180 per hour $1,800 
Senior Staff (frequent, 80 hours $135 per hour $10,800 

(toxicologist, hydrogeologist) 
Support staff (as needed 32 hours) $48 -$75 per hour $3,200 

(Cad/Graphics, Administrative) 



29 



F«b-03-2000 04:35pe Fro«-DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS ■*■! 4 1 5437701 Q 

Attachment I] 
Page 1 of I 

'ask 2 - Attend and participate in supplementary technical meetings ($40,000) 

Jeomatrix staff assist City staff in followup technical neetiaga typically working on issues 
.dentified in BRAC and RAB minutes. 24 meetings e $1,650 per meeting. 

:6timated costs are reasonable given need to resolve both RAB and BRAC issues and staff rate 
isage ($2,767.50 TD) : 

Principal (occasional, 10 hours) $165-3180 per hour $1,800 

Senior Staff (frequent, 140 hours $135 per hour $18,900 

(toxicologist, hydrogeologist) 

Associate Staff (frequent, 150 hours $9S-$10S per hour $15,750 

Support staff (as needed 50 hours) $48 -$75 per hour $3,550 

(Cad/Graphics, Administrative) 

Task 3 - Document Review ($45,000) 

Jeomatnx staff assist City staff in preparing review comment letters on proposed Navy 
:leanup actions and regulatory agency concerns. 

Detimated costs are reasonable given the large nu.-nber and complexity of individual documer.-a 
($2,028.00 TD) : 

Principal (occasional, 20 hours) $16S-$18J per hour $3,600 

Senior Staff (frequent, 140 hours $135 per hour $18,900 

(toxicologist, hydrogeologist) 

Associate Staff (frequent, 150 hours $9S-$105 per hour $15,750 

Support staff (as needed 90 hours) $48-$75 per $6,750 

(Cad/Graphica, Administrative) 

rask 4 - Interim Data Review ($12,500) 

Jeomatrix staff assist City staff in review of existing data, identify data gaps and 
evaluate associated reuse and health risks. 

istimated costs are reasonable given need to be sure that all cleanup actions are thorough 
ind appropriate for intended usages ($1,312.50 TD) . 

Principal (occasional, 4 hours) $165-$180 per hour $720 

Senior staff (frequent, 40 hours $135 per hour $5,400 

(Toxicologist, hydrogeologist) 

Associate Staff (frequent, 40 hours $95-$105 per hour $4,200 

Support staff (as needed 40 hours) $48-$75 per hour $2,180 

(Cad/Graphics, Administrative) 

Task 5 - Field Oversight and Sampling ($10.000) 

3eomatrix staff provide field inspection and oversight of sample collection and ongoing 
remedial activities. 

Sstimated costs are reasonable given current knowledge of proposed remedial and sampling 
activities ($1, 451 .25 TD) . 

Senior Staff (limited, 8 hours $135 per hour $1,080 

(toxicologist, hydrogeologist) 

Associate Staff (freqaent, 40 hours $95-$l05 per hour $4,200 

Support staff (as needed 6 hours) $48-$75 per hour $460 



30 



Feb-03-2000 04:35pn Fron-DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS +14154377019 



Attachment III 
Page 3 of 4 



I (Cad/ Graphics, Administrative) 

Outside Laboratory Analyses cost varies by analysis $4,260 

ik 6 - Project Tracking ($12,000) 

xnacrix staff provide overall progress reports to City 3taff summarizing ongoing remedial 
livities to ensure that cleanup and investigation milestones are being met by the Navy. 

:imated costs are reasonable given the volume of activities and reporting to track 
.,444.10 TD) . 

Senior Staff (frequent, 24 hours $135 per hour $3,240 

(toxicologist, hydrogeologisc) 
Associate Staff (frequent, 75 hours $95-$105 per hour $7,875 

Support staff (as needed 16 hours) $48-$75 per hour $885 

(Cad/Graphics, Administrative) 

k 7 - contingency ($40,500) 

matrix assumes a large contingency budget based on past experience. The assumption of a 
ge contingency budget is very reasonable given the fluid nature of reuse planning . The" 
den discovery of additional contaminants requires additional sampling and new reuse 
posals may require differing cleanup strategies requiring prompt and informed decisions 
environmental issues ($4,020.00 TD) . 

Senior Staff (frequent, 40 hours) $135 per hour $5,400 

(toxicologist, hydxogeologist) 

Associate Staff (frequent, 80 hours $95-$l05 per hour $8,400 
I Support staff (as needed 40 hours) $48-$75 per hour $2 ,400 

I (Cad/Graphics, Administrative) 

Outside Laboratory Analyses cost varies by analysis $24,300 



mary Cnrmmnts 

Geomatrix cost estimates are reasonable given the City's experience in both the Treasure 
Island and Hunter's Point environmental problem solving history. 

The request for large contingencies is not out of line for environmental work. While 
typical construction contingencies may run from 5 to 15% of project costs (depending on 
the nature of construction) , our experience is that contingencies for environmental 
restoration and remediation may run from 15% to 40%. This is based on hard choices - 
spend large sums up front sampling and analyzing subgrade contaminants to minimize 
uncertainty or keep large contingencies to deal with unforeseen conditions. 
Geomatrix past experience is of great value in resolving these ongoing environmental 
issues - City staff wish to retain their institutional knowledge and experience. 
Geomatrix utilizes local MBE/WBE consulting firms in performing these tasks; the 
anticipated utilization of Olivia Chen Consulting as a subconsultant is about 10%. 
Geomatrix was selected for this task via a competetive RFP process monitored and approved 
by the City's Human Rights Commission and the Civil Service Commission. A copy of the 
OFPMA 88 Porm used to document other firms unsuccessfully competing for the work is 
attached. Rate information on firms submitting unsuccessful proposals has been discarded 
and is not available. Geomatrix rates are consistent with standard rates for 
environmental consulting services. 

Geomatrix currently complies with the City's 12B requirements and offers benefit packages 
to employees in compliance with current City policies. 



31 



Feb-03-2000 04:3Epa Froe-DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS 



♦ U1543770U 



Attachment III 
Page 4 of 4 



The request for release of reserve is for $200,000. Staff requests release of the 
additional S25.000 for use in related environmental issues (such as potential 
geotechnical and dredging consultation) that may require consultation expertise from 
firms other than Georaatrix. 



. 






32 



Feb-03-2000 04:36m Froo-DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS 



+14154377019 



Attachment iV 



OFFMA-88 



DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS 
RFP SOLICITATION SUMMARY 



Bureau of Construction Management 
Job No.: 9899TIC Title: Environmental and Civil Engineering Consultation Services for TI 



Scope of Work: To provide oversight on Citv projects involving the reuse of Treasure jjjand and comment on 
riak assessments and cleanup standards as tfaev rdate to future development 



SCORING ORIG = Original Score WPRF = With Preference 








Firms Submitting RFP 


MBE 
WBE 

LBE 

* 


1 Qualif 


ication 


Propo 


sal 


Inter 


views 


Total- 


' ." :r .. 


ORIG 


WPRF 


ORIG 


WPRF 


ORIG 


WPRF 


ORIG 


WPRF 


Applied. Remedial 
Technologies 


MBE 


n/a 


n/a 


166 


182.6 


113 


124.3 


lis 


/ 124.3 


ArcostPM 


MBE 


n/a 


n/a 


118 


129.8 


n/a 




n/a : 


n/a 


Gabewell 


WBE 


n/a 


n/a 


Non- 
respon 

sive 


n/a 


n/a 


n/a 


n/a 


n/a 


Geo matrix 


none 


n/a 


n/a 


293 


293 


385 


385 


293 


293 


Harding Lawson 
Associates (HLA) 


none 


n/a 


n/a 


254 


254 


268 


268 


268 


268 


ICES 


none 


n/a 


a/a 


97 


97 


n/a 




n/a 


n/a 


Treadwell&RoUo 


none 


n/a 


n/a 


Non- 

rcspon 

sive 




n/a 




n/a 


n/a 


Vertex 


none 


n/a 


n/a 


US 


148 


208 


208 


208 


208 








































fi/ - 



+ MBE/WBE/LBE Codes: A-Asian B-Black. L-Lattno W -Woman 

All firms submitting RFP are shown above. 



CONSULTANT SELECTED: GEOMATRIX 
Reason (t) for selection: 

Highest ranked in oral interview 



Panel Members 


Affiliation 


Minority or Woman 


John Chester 


CCSF. DPW - BCM/SAR 




Stan DeSouza 


CCSF, DPW - BCM/SAR 


AM 


Rona Sandler 


Citv Attomev 


W 


Martha Walters 


Redevelopment 


W 









CONTRACT MANAGER 




%& 



BCM/SAR 07/01/97 

W \97RFPS\AC9799\OFFMA8R.DOT 



DATE 



'/tyisr 



33 



. 



Office of the Mayor 
san francisco 

Treasure Island Project 

410 Avenue of Palms, Bldg #1 

Treasure Island 

San Francisco. CA 94130 

(415) 274-0660 

FAX (415) 274-0299 




Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
On 

■0 ,. 



& 



^rD l$l 



January 14,2000 

Hon. Leland Yee \^ 

Chair, Finance Committee 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

City Hall 

One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 



Re: 



Release of Reserve Funds 



Dear Supervisor Yee: 

As part of the FY 2000 budget process, $500,000 of the Treasure Island Project's budget was 
placed on reserve pending establishment of a contract for environmental monitoring services. 
We are now requesting the release of these funds and their allocation as summarized below. 
Please note that the original estimate of $500,000 for environmental monitoring services has 
been revised and we now estimate the cost of these services to be $200,000 for FY 2000. We 
therefore are requesting that the $300,000 balance not needed for environmental monitoring be 
reallocated to building maintenance services 

Request for Allocation of Reserved Funds, Index Code 210009 



Subobject Description 

02799 Environmental Monitoring 

02801 Scavenger Services 

02802 Janitorial Services 

-2899 Other Building Maintenance services 



Amount 

$200,000 

$75,000 

$85,000 

$140,000 



We would appreciate your scheduling the appropriate Board Committee action at your earliest 
convenience. 



Sincerely, 

& 

Eila M. Arbuckle 
Finance Manager 




-it .->.\ {.'■■■>■:■ ■■■ 



TREASURE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
City and County of San Francisco 



Agenda Item No. | 1 Meeting of December 15, 1999 



Subject: Funding an extension of the contract with Geomatrix to continue to provide oversight 
of the U.S. Navy's environmental clean up program on Treasure Island 

Contact/Phone: Robert Mahoney, Deputy Executive Director 
274-0660 



SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION 

Authorize the release of funds to the Department of Public Works for an amount not to exceed 
$200,000 to fund an extension of the contract with Geomatrix to continue to provide oversight of 
the U.S. Navy's environmental clean up program on Treasure Island 



DISCUSSION 

The City and County of San Francisco (City) established the Treasure Island Development 
Authority (Authority) to manage the conversion of former Naval Station Treasure Island from 
Navy use to civilian use. As part of its transfer responsibilities, the Navy is undertaking an 
environmental remediation program to meet federal requirements that an environmentally clean 
base is transferred. One of the Authority's chief responsibilities is to assure that the Navy's 
environmental remediation activities achieve the agreed clean-up level for planned civilian use. 
The Authority, through the City's Department of Public Works, has retained a consultant, 
Geomatrix, to secure an independent analysis of the thoroughness and defensibility of the 
environmental work conducted by the Navy, and to assure the compatibility of the Navy's 
proposed remediation activities with the Authority's redevelopment plans. The contract 
extension will continue these oversight activities through June 2000. 

Geomatrix was selected by the Department of Public Works as an "as needed" consultant for 
environmental review and remediation activities through a public Request for Proposals process. 
The contract extension needed by the Authority has been approved by the San Francisco Civil 
Service Commission. 

Pending establishment of a contract to provide environmental monitoring services, the FY 2000 
budget estimate of S500.000 for such work was placed on reserve by the Board of Supervisors. 
If authorized by the Authority, staff will request release of these funds from the Board Please 
note that the original estimate (made in January 1999) has been reduced as work on the 
environmental remediation program has proceeded. 



BACKGROUND 

For the environmental remediation program, Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island were 
divided into 144 parcels (1 18 on TI and 26 on YBI) which were then classified by environmental 
condition to enable the Navy and the Authority to identify properties that are suitable for lease or 
transfer on an on-going basis. A Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) was established to provide 
public review, input and comment on all aspects of the environmental remediation program. 

Concurrent with the parcel classification program, the Navy initiated an Installation Restoration 
(IR) Program to identify and investigate potential hazardous waste sites. Twenty-five IR sites 
originally were selected for investigation and remediation, if needed, under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). These 25 IR sites were 
grouped into Onshore and Offshore Operating Units (OUs). Site 12 was broken out from the 
Onshore OU and established as a separate OU because completion of the entire Onshore OU 
would not accommodate the Authority's reuse schedule for Site 12. An additional group of IR 
sites that comprise the planned SWA may be broken out from the Onshore OU as a separate OU 
also to accommodate the Authority's redevelopment schedule. Nine IR sites were classified as 
petroleum-only sites, and were removed from the CERCLA process. Investigation and 
remediation of these nine IR sites is being performed under California Underground Storage 
Tank regulations with the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 
as the lead regulatory agency for the project. In addition, the California Regional Water Quality 
Control Board - San Francisco Region (RWQCB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) have been actively participating in the process. 

All of the OUs described above are being investigated concurrently. Between November 1999 
and June 2000, the oversight work will be focused on three areas: 60% on Site 12, 25% on SWA, 
and 15% on the petroleum and fuel pipeline sites, and Onshore and Offshore OUs. Site 12 
consists primarily of residential housing and the Authority has begun to lease the housing units 
as scheduled. However, DTSC has identified parts of Site 12 formerly cleared for leasing as 
requiring further evaluation. Since the Authority's leasing schedule calls for all housing areas to 
be leased within the next several months, implementation of the additional investigation has been 
expedited. Investigation of the SWA is focused on assuring that the Authority's schedule, which 
calls for groundbreaking next summer, can be met. The balance of the work is focused on the 
petroleum and fuel pipeline sites, and the remainder of the Onshore and Offshore OUs. 

SCOPE OF WORK 

The primary scope of work includes: 

• attending technical and strategy meetings, 

• assisting the Authority with risk communication, 

• reviewing work plans and reports, and 

• providing occasional field oversight or collecting samples. 

Monthly technical meetings are held to review the status of on-going tasks and identity 
outstanding issues. The Navy and its consultants, the Authority and its consultants, regulators. 
and RAB members participate in these meetings. Additional meetings are scheduled to address 
significant issues identified at the monthly meeting. These technical working meetings clarif) 
details of a specific field program or technical evaluation approach. Other supplemental meetings 



may be associated with assisting the Authority with risk communication, including technical f 

presentations to Authority management, regulators, and tenants. In addition, the Navy prepares 
work plans and reports to document its approach, confirm agreements between interested parties, 
and comply with regulatory requirements, which also are reviewed by the Authority's consultant. 
Finally, the Authority occasionally may request that its consultant oversee the Navy's field work 
or collect field samples to verify the adequacy of the Navy's work, or to fill a data gap critical to 
the Authority's needs that is not addressed by the Navy. 

The process for completing environmental investigations at NSTI is fairly well defined, 
however, regulators commonly identify the need for previously unplanned activities (additional 
investigations, reports and meetings) as new field data are collected and analyzed. Additional 
work plans and reports are then prepared that, in turn, require additional review and additional 
meetings to address technical issues. The level of effort required to respond to such activities is 
difficult to estimate, but represented approximately 30% of the consultant's total work during the 
previous six-month period 



RECOMMENDATION 

Staff recommends approval 



. 



. 



RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF FUNDS TO THE DEPARTMENT 
OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000 TO FUND AN 
EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACT WITH GEOMATRIX TO CONTINUE TO 
PROVIDE TECHNICAL OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY'S 
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP PROGRAM ON FORMER NAVAL STATION 
TREASURE ISLAND 



WHEREAS, former Naval Station Treasure Island is a military base located on Treasure Island 
and Yerba Buena Island (together, the "Base"), which is currently owned by the United States of 
America ("the Federal Government"); and, 

WHEREAS, Treasure Island was selected for closure and disposition by the Base Realignment 
and Closure Commission in 1993, acting under Public Law 101-510, and its subsequent 
amendments; and, 

WHEREAS, On May 2, 1997, the Board of Supervisors passed Resolution No. 380-97, 
authorizing the Mayor's Treasure Island Project Office to establish a nonprofit public benefit 
corporation known as the Treasure Island Development Authority (the 'Authority") to act as a 
single entity focused on the planning, redevelopment, reconstruction, rehabilitation, reuse and 
conversion of the Base for the public interest, convenience, welfare and common benefit of the 
inhabitants of the City and County of San Francisco; and, 

WHEREAS, Under the Treasure Island Conversion Act of 1997, which amended Section 
33492.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and added Section 2.1 to Chapter 1333 of the 
Statutes of 1968 (the "Act"), the California Legislature (I) designated the Authority as a 
redevelopment agency under California redevelopment law with authority over the Base upon 
approval of the City's Board of Supervisors, and (ii) with respect to those portions of the Base 
which are subject to Tidelands Trust, vested in the Authority the Authority to administer the 
public trust for commerce, navigation and fisheries as to such property; and 

WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors approved the designation of the Authority as a 
redevelopment agency for Treasure Island in 1997; and, 

WHEREAS, under the Act and the Authority's Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, the 
Authority, acting by and through its Board of Directors, has the power, subject to applicable 
laws, to sell, lease, exchange, transfer, convey or otherwise grant an interest in or right to use or 
occupy all or any portion of the real property located on the Base; and, 

WHEREAS, Geomatrix Consultants Incorporated was selected to provide assistance in 
reviewing, commenting and overseeing the Navy's environmental remediation program on 
fomier naval station Treasure Island following a public Request for Proposals process; and 

WHEREAS, the Authority needs to continue to oversee the Navy's environmental remediation 
program; 

Now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Authority hereby authorizes the release of ahead) 

budgeted funds to the Department of Public Works to fund the continuation o\ technical 



oversight of the United States Navy's environmental cleanup program on former naval base 
Treasure Island pursuant to the terms and conditions of the contract attached hereto as Exhibit A. 



CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY 

I hereby certify that I am the duly elected and acting Secretary of the Treasure Island 
Development Authority, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, and that the above 
Resolution was duly adopted and approved by the Board of Directors of the Authority at a 
properly noticed meeting on December 8, 1999. 






John Elberling, Secretary 



. 



» 



WORK PLAN 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTATION SERVICES 

NAVAL STATION TREASURE ISLAND 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



This Work Plan outlines the specific activities Geomatrix will perform to provide a third party 
evaluation on the Navy's environmental remediation program for former naval station Treasure 
Island as requested by the Treasure Island Development Authority (Authority). The Authority 
seeks to: 

• Secure an independent analysis of the thoroughness and defensibility of the Navy's 
environmental remediation work 

• Assure the compatibility of the Navy's remedial activities with the Authority's 
redevelopment plans. 



SCOPE OF WORK 

The primary scope of work includes seven tasks: 

Task 1: Attend and participate in regularly scheduled technical meetings 

Task 2: Attend and participate in supplemental technical meetings 

Task 3: Review and provide written comments on technical documents 

Task 4: Review interim data from field programs to assess data quality, and create 

presentations (such as tables or maps) to summarize the field data, and/or compare the 

field data to appropriate screening criteria. 
Task 5: Oversee the Navy's sample collection or undertake independent sample collection 
Task 6: Track Navy's activities base-wide and report weekly to the Authority 
Task 8: Contingency 



Task 1 : Regularly Scheduled Technical Meetings -- Estimated Cost: $15,000 

This task entails attending regularly scheduled BRAC Closure Team (BCT) or Restoration 
Advisory Board (RAB) meetings, including preparation time and reviewing and commenting on 
meeting minutes. For purposes of this cost estimate, it is assumed that the consultant will attend 
8 BCT meetings and 2 RAB meetings (average cost of SI, 500 per meeting). 

Task 2: Supplemental Technical Working Meetings -- Estimated Cost: S40,000 

This task entails attending supplemental technical working meetings that are scheduled to 
follow-up on outstanding issues identified in the monthly BCT or RAB meetings. I hese 
meetings also may be related to assisting the City with risk communication. This task involve 
preparation time and reviewing and commenting on meeting minutes; however, the preparation 
time for these meetings is expected to be 'onger than for the regularly scheduled meetings. 
Based on the number of supplemental technical meetings scheduled during the previous 6-month 



C 'My Documents ( omracti * leomatrixVgeowork doc 



period, it is assumed that the consultant will attend 3 meetings per month or a total of 24 of these 
meetings (average cost of $1,675 per meeting). 

Task 3: Document Review - Estimated Cost: $45,000 

This task entails reviewing work plans, reports, and other documents prepared by the Navy or 
other parties (e.g., regulatory review comments), preparation of a draft letter summarizing the 
comments for the Authority's review and preparation of a final letter incorporating the 
Authority's comments. The following 18 documents are scheduled to be issued and reviewed 
between November 1999 and June 2000 based on the schedule of reports provided by the Nav\ 
at the November 1, 1999 BCT meeting or as modified in subsequent meetings. 

Draft Pilot Test Technical Memorandum (TM) for Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Sites 

Final Pilot Test TM for CAP Sites 

Draft Final Field Sampling and Analysis Plan (FSAP) for CAP Sites 

Final FSAP for CAP Sites 

Draft Focused Investigation TM for CAP Sites 

Final Focused Investigation TM for CAP Sites 

Final Fuel Line Remedial Investigation/Corrective Action Plan (RJ/CAP) Work Plan 

Draft Fuel Line RI/CAP Report 

Draft Final Phase 2a Site Supplemental Environmental Baseline Survey (SEBS) 

Draft Letter Report for Building 1207/1209 Lead Removal Action 

Final Letter Report for Building 1207/1209 Lead Removal Action 

Draft Field Sampling Plan (FSP) for Elementary School Area 

Final FSP for Elementary School Area 

Draft FSP for Buildings 1205 1207, 1244. 1251 1253. and Debris Disposal Areas (DDAs) C 

and D 

Final FSP for Buildings 1205 1207, 1244. 1251 1253, and Debris Disposal Areas (DDAs) C 

andD 

Draft FSP for DDAs A and B 

Final FSP for DDAs A and B 

Final Removal Site Evaluation Action Memorandum (RSE AM) for Building 1133 Removal 

Action 

The cost to rev tew and comment on work plans, reports, or other documents is expected to range 
from approximately $1,000 to S10.000 per document depending on the amount and complexity 
of the information presented. For purposes of this cost estimate, it is assumed that the cost to 
review each document will average S2,500. 



Task 4: Interim Data Review -- Estimated Cost: SI 2,500 

This task entails reviewing interim data during and immediately following field programs to 
assess the need for additional investigation or expedited remedial action prior to completion of 
an investigation report. This review may include an assessment of data quality, creation of tables 
or maps summarizing the data, and or comparison of the data to appropriate screening criteria. 
The results of this review may be presented to the Authority verbally or in writing depending on 
the nature of the investigation. For purposes of this cost estimate, it is assumed that the 
consultant will review data from five field programs (i.e.. Former Storage Yard; Manner Drue, 
Elementary School; Buildings 1205 1207, 1244, and 1251/1253 and Debris Disposal Areas C 
and D; Disposal Areas A and B) at an average cost of S2.500 per area. 

■ -. doc - 






♦ 



Task 5: Field Oversight and Sample - Estimated Cost: $10,000 

This task entails field oversight or sample collection to assure the quality of the Navy's work or 
to fill data gaps critical to the Authority's needs that are not addressed by the Navy or required 
by the regulators. Field oversight may be associated with site investigation or removal actions. 
In either case, the consultant will observe field activities to ensure compliance with approved 
work plans (e.g., general quality assurance/quality control, sample number, location, and 
analysis, including confirmation samples if applicable). Sample collection may be conducted in 
conjunction with a Navy field effort (split samples) or independently from the Navy's 
environmental program. For purposes of this cost estimate, it is assumed that the consultant will 
oversee one of the Navy's field efforts and conduct one sampling program. 

Task 6: Project Tracking -- Estimated Cost: $12,000 

This task entails tracking the Navy's progress on a base-wide basis to ensure that the City's 
needs are met. The consultant will prepare a Project Status Summary on a monthly basis that 
identifies key issues, action items associated with those issues, the party responsible for 
completing the action item, and the date by which the action item will be addressed. The Project 
Status Summary will also include a subset of upcoming reports. Other activities under this task 
may include creation and maintenance of a schedule to facilitate closely tracking the Navy's 
activities (e.g., investigation/removal activities in Site 12). Finally, this task will entail weekly 
progress reports to the City documenting the activities completed and estimated costs for the 
reporting period and costs incurred to date. Project tracking costs are estimated to be $1,500 per 
month. 

Task 7: Contingency -- Estimated Cost: S40,500 

Although the process for completing environmental investigations at NSTI is fairly well defined, 
unforeseen activities inevitably arise as new field data are collected. These activities may 
include additional investigations, which result in additional work plans and reports that require 
review, and additional meetings to address technical issues. The level of effort required to 
addresses these types of unforeseen activities is difficult to estimate, but represented 
approximately 30 percent of the total level of effort expended during the previous 6-month 
period. Therefore, a contingency budget of 30 percent of the total estimated cost for Tasks 1 
through 6 is assumed for purposes of this cost estimate. 



The total estimated cost to complete the above-described Scope of Work is SI 75,000. 



c M> Documi i 



TABLE 1 

BUDGET ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR 
ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTATION SERVICES 

NAVAL STATION TREASURE ISLAND 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



Task 


Estimated Cost 


Task 1: Regulatory Scheduled Technical Meetings 


S 15,000 


Task 2: Supplemental Technical Meetings 


S 40,000 


Task 3: Document Review 


S 45,000 


Task 4: Interim Data Review 


S 12,500 


Task 5: Field Oversight and Sample Collection 


S 10,000 


Task 6: Project Tracking 


S 12,000 


Task 7: Contingency 


.500 


TOTAJ : 


SI 75,000 j 



INVOICING 

Geomatrix will submit monthly bills to the attention of Steve Mullinix at the Department of 
Public Works, Bureau of Construction Management. SAR. 16S0 Mission Street, San Francisco 
CA. These invoices will be itemized by task, and within each task total costs per staff level will 
be identified. Expenses also will be identified and supported by copies of original invoices. 
Meetings will be identified by subject, date and attendees. 



I tocumenls Contracts' ■Geomatr • 



REQUEST FOR CONTRACT ACTION 



(OFFMA-81 REV. 04/20/95) 
DATE: September 10. 1QQQ 



Q Accounting, 875 Stevenson Street, 4th Floor 



REQUESTED ACTION: 



Q 


GEN 


Q 


BOA 


U 


BOE 


Q 


BCM 


U 


BBI 


U 


SSM 



Q Accounting, 2323 Army Street: 

For: Q BBR Q BSM 

□ WPC Q ERM 

Q SSR 



: Contract Manager: Steve Mullinnix 



Q ADVERTISE A RFP/RFQ 

Q AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT 

Q CALL FOR FORMAL BID FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 

Q AWARD A FORMAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 

Q AWARD AN INFORMAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 

BASED ON QUOTE ACCEPTED BY CONTRACT MANAGER 
□ DECLARE AN EMERGENCY (IF NOT PREVIOUSLY 

DECLARED) 
Q AWARD AN EMERGENCY CONTRACT PER ATTACHED 
EMERGENCY DECLARED BY ANOTHER DEPARTMENT 
8 MODIFY A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT 



BUR/DIV: Construction Management/SAR 



Phone: 554-8374 



•RACTOR: 

riatrix Consultants, Inc. 



lo. 



TIC 



AMOUNT/ESTIMATE: 
jlOOO.OO 



Address, 

2101 Webster Street, 12 ,h Floor 

Oakland, CA 94612 



PHONE: 



(510)663-4100 



TITLE: 

Environmental and Civil Engineering Consultation Services for 

Treasure Island 



MODIFICATION AMOUNT REQUESTED: 

f 375-000 °° 



TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT AS MODIFIED: 



ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: 



09/30/00 



«J SOURCE AND GRANT IF APPLICABLE: 

ire Island Development Authority Work Order 



TIME EXTENSION: 



E OF WORK: (INCLUDING JUSTIFICATION FOR EMERGENCY) 

ovide consultation services to perform civil and environmental engineering to include risk assessments, 
il studies and support for TIDA staff- Modification requested bv Mayor's staff due to accelerated 
opment plans and need for rapid assessment and reporting 



[ALCONDITIONS/INSURANCE/EXCEPTIONS/REMARKS: 



DPW ORDER No. 171,350 



lrpose of this OFFMA 81 is to obtain a~Modification to an existing signle fund source Agreement 



: FMA USE ONLY 




MMCNDQD 




MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT 
For Professional Services Contract 

WHEREAS, the City & County of San Francisco and Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. have entered 
into an agreement (Appointment # 171,350) to provide professional environmental and civil 
engineering consultation services for Treasure Island, and whereas, the parties now desire to 
modify the Agreement as described in Appendix A, now, therefore the parties agree as follows: 

(please check boxes) 

1 • The Agreement will be modified in accordance with Attachment A. 

2. The City will ADD K) DEDUCT □ the sum of %37S,00&« for changes described in 

Attachment A. 



The City will ADD D SUBTRACT □ NA calendar days TO D FROM 

Othe original Agreement or the latest modification as described in Attachment A. 

In all other respects, the original Agreement and all modifications thereto shall remain in 
full force and effect. 



CITY 



CONTRACTOR 



.00 



Approved: def^i f^^ >'^= > 




Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 
2101 Webster Street. 12 m Floor 
Oakland, CA 94612 



Harlan L. Kelly, Jr. 
Approved 



B> 



Mark A. Primeau, Architect, AIA, Director of 
Public Works 




Approved 



NA 



Edwin M. Lee, Director of Purchasing 
Approved 



Approved as to form 
Louise H. Renne 
City Attorney 



Deputy City Attorney 



,z 



Signature 



James C. Price 



Name 
Vice President 



Title 



Sfcounty of San Francisco Human Rights Commission 

■iinn- ■ • _ ^ f Contract Compliance 

Willie Lewis Broayj. Jr. Dispule ResoIulion/ P aIr Hous 

Ma y° r Minority/Women/Local Business Enterprise 

Lesb ( an Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Discrimination 

Marivic S. Bamba 
Executive Director 

CONTRACT AMENDMENT. MODIFICATION OR SUPPLEMENTAL CHANGE ORDERS 

APPROVAL FORM 



tubmit this form when requesting contract amendment, modification, supplement or change order that cumulatively 
ncrease by more than 20% of the total dollar value of all contracts originally valued at $50, 000 or more for 
approval. - 

REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS: 

) copies of contract amendments, modifications, supplements, and/or change orders leading up to the 20%; 

and 
:) a spreadsheet with a breakdown of the list of contractors and subcontractors working on each change order 

with the contract dollars for each individual firm(s). 
) Upon receipt of all the required documents, the HRC shall provide the requesting officer his or her 

determination regarding the proposed amendments, modification, supplement or change orders within 2 

business days of HRC's receipt of the request. If a response is not received then the request shall be 

deemed approved. 



Jame of Project: 



/r&cys(yrc3 J-.s/anc/- coo/ronm&nfcy / Cso/?scJ /r&rf'&n 



Original Contract Amount: 



'^f/OC^poO.** 



Contract Amount as Modified to Date: J //~>jrs /-»/0/0 ct=:> 






Amount of Current Modification Requested: 






7 fa f C^corys^/ro/^/ h/? 



3rief Description of Services Required: 



Subconsultants, if any, to perform this work: (MBE/WBE utilization (% of Discipline(s) for this request). If not, 
please explain: 



APPROVED: 






lequesting Officer s^ "TJate Human Rights Commission Rep. Date 




Human Rights Commission Rep. Date 



City and County of San Francisco 



Department of Public Works 
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DIVISION' 




i 



NOTICE TO PROCEED 



Contractor: 



Geomatrix Consultants, Inc 
100 Pine Street, 10th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 



Project: 
Term: 
Job No : 
DPW Order No.: 
Contract Amounts 
Controller's Posting Number 

Reference this M on your invoices |\| ENCN9900005-01 
Date Posted: 11/4/98 



Environmental and civil engineering consultation services for Treasure Island 

to September 30, 2000 

1367K 

171,350 

$100,000 



«1 



. 



Mark A Pnmeau, AIA 
Director of Public Works 
and City Architect 






Division of Contract Administration 
November 5. 1998 



cc: Steve Mullinnix, Bureau of Construction Management 



attachments: Contract Purchase Order 

Appointment 
Agreement 



KMOkmc 



. 



(415) 554-6229 



FAX (415)554-6232 



875 Stevenson Street. Room 420 San Francisco, C 



2 " o r- 




■a 


5T rn 





sr? 





3 -• 





o- d 


IS 

a 


°3 




3 <t> 




O = 


a 


c a> 




a — 




re nj 


o 


■o i 


3 


o o 
< 7 


m 




Q. = 


ID 


3 re 


H 


iQ 3 


o 


M ^ 


a. 


TJ 3 




re re 




o re 


o 


u_ (3 




N 3 


o 


re to 


3 


"• n 




5 o 





< « 




re c 


-1 


S - 


o 


n, Si 




as 






m 


o U A 


71 


d 7 


CJ 


d n 


-J 


re re 



Q. 3 M 



" .° 




> 


o 


I 


s' 


C 
H 


o 




7} 


() 








< 


o 






() 




c: 


> 


ro 


> 










. T 






3 


- 
















































o 




o 


o 


.:'• 




o 


o 














o 


o 




u> o 



3 = 



CI1 , AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 

ORDER NO. 171,350 

APPOINTMENT 



Contractor: Geomatrix Consultants, Inc 
100 Pine Street, 10th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

is appointed to provide environmental and civil engineering consultation services to support planning 
and decision making for future development of Treasure Island 

Payment will be made upon submission of approved invoice based upon work performed satisfactorily. 
Total cost not to exceed $100,000.00. Estimated completion date is September 30, 2000. 

Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the City & County of San Francisco, its officers and 
employees and furnish certificates of insurance directly orotecting himself, any subcontractors and the 
City & County of San Francisco. The City & County of San Francisco, its officers, agents and 
employees shalljbe named as additional insureds and insurance shall be for 



Comprehensive General Liability 
(bodily injury and property damage) 

Business Automobile Liability 
(bodily injury and property damage) 

Workers' Compensation, Employers' Liability 

Professional Liability 



$1,000,000 Single Limit 

S1, 000,000 Single Limit 

S100.000 

S3, 000, 000 Per Claim 



A Notice To Proceed and a $100,000.00 Contract Purchase Order will be issued to the Contractor 

Funds are available: 

Index Code DPWMBPWF0296, FT/F/SF LG/AGF/PWF. P/PD ICM430/NL. SUBOBJ 02799 

Job No. 1367K 



RECOMMENDED: 



:U1L 



) 



Robert Carlson 

Deputy Director for Financial 

Management and Administration 

DISTRIBUTION 

DPW Order Clerk 

Accounting Division Manager 

Contract Clerk (2 signed) 

Geomatrix Consultants, Inc 

Steve Mullmnix, Bureau of Contract Management 

Approved November 4, 1993 




« 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 



GREEMENT BETWEEN THE CVTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND GEOMATRIX Consultants. Inc. 



rhis Agreement is made this day of , 1 9, in the City and County of San Francisco, 

State of California, by and between: 

GEOMATRIX Consultants, Inc. 
100 Pine Street, 10 01 Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

ereinafter referred to as "Contractor," and City and County of San Francisco, a municipal corporation, hereinafter 
sferred to as "City," acting by and through its Director of Public Works, hereinafter referred to as "Director." 

Recitals 

VHEREAS, the Department of Public Works wishes to obtain Environmental and Civil Engineering Consultation 
ervices for Treasure Island; and, 

VHEREAS, Contractor represents and warrants that it is qualified to perform the services required for City as set forth 
nder this contract; and, 

VHEREAS, approval for said Agreement was obtained from the Civil Service Commission by Resolution 
lo. PSC# 4005-98/99 dated inu-| J.L.- \<-\<\ y 

Jbw, THEREFORE, the parties agree 8£ follows: 

. Definitions 

Where any word or phrase defined below, or a pronoun used in place thereof, is used in any part of this Agreement 
and Specifications, it shall have the meaning herein set forth. 

AUTHORIZATION Contract Order of the City and County of San Francisco properly 

executed by the Director, Director of Purchasing, and Director of 
Administrative Services, and certified by the Controller for the specific 
funding of this Agreement or any modification thereof. 

DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE Director of Administrative Services of the City and County of San 

SERVICES Francisco. 

CITY City and County of San Francisco, a municipal corporation. 

CONTRACTOR GEOMATRIX Consultants, Inc. 

CONTROLLER Controller of the City and County of San Francisco. 

DIRECTOR Director of Public Works of the City and County of San Francisco. 

WORK The work to be done in providing the services as described and 

specified in Appendix A. 

Whenever the words "as directed", "as required", "as permitted", or words of like effect are used, it shall be 
understood as the direction, requirement, or permission of the Department of Public Works. The words "sufficient", 
"necessary", or "proper", and the like, mean sufficient, necessary or proper in the judgment of the Department of 
Public Works. The words "approval", "acceptable", "satisfactory", or words of like import, shall mean approved by. or 
acceptable to, or satisfactory to the Department of Public Works, unless otherwise indicated by the context. 



2. Certification of Funds; Budget and Fiscal Provisions; Termination in the Event of Non-Appropriation 

This Agreement is subject to the budget and fiscal provisions of the Charter of City. Charges will accrue only after 
prior written authorization certified by the Controller, and the amount of City's obligation hereunder shall not at an 
time exceed the amount certified for the purpose and period stated in such advance authorization. 



• 



This Agreement will terminate without penalty, liability or expense of any kind to City at the end of any fiscal year in ' 
the event funds are not appropriated for the next succeeding fiscal year. If funds are appropriated for a portion of trl 
fiscal year, this Agreement will terminate, without penalty, liability or expense of any kind at the end of the term for 
which funds are appropriated. 

City has no obligation to make appropriations for this Agreement in lieu of appropriations for new or other 
agreements. City budget decisions are subject to the discretion of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. 
Contractor's assumption of risk of possible non-appropriation is part of the consideration for this Agreement. 

THIS SECTION CONTROLS AGAINST ANY AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. 

3. Term of the Agreement 

Subject to Section 2, the term of this Agreement shall be from the date of posting of the Agreement to September 
30, 2000. 

4 Effective Date of Agreement 

This Agreement shall become effective when the Controller has certified to the availability of funds and Contractor 
has been notified in writing. 

5. Services Contractor Agrees to Perform 

The Contractor agrees to perform the services provided for in Appendix A. "Services to be Provided by Contractor^ 
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. " 

6. Compensation 

Compensation shall be made in monthly payments on or before the last day of each month for work, as set forth in 
Section 5 of this Agreement, that the Director of Public Works, in his or her sole discretion, concludes has been 
performed as of the last day of the immediately preceding month. In no event shall the amount of this contract 
exceed $100,000.00 ( ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS). The breakdown of costs associated with this 
contract is provided for in Appendix B, "Schedule of Values," attached hereto and incorporated by reference as 
though fully set forth herein 

No charges shall be incurred under this Agreement nor shall any payments become due to Contractor until reports, 
services, or both, required under this Agreement are received from Contractor and approved by the Department of 
Public Works as being in accordance with this Agreement 

In no event shall City be liable for interest or late charges for any late payments 

7. Method of Payment 

Invoices furnished by Contractor under this Agreement must be in a form acceptable to Director of Purchasing and 
Controller. All amounts paid by City to Contractor shall be subject to audit by City. 

Payment shall be made by City to Contractor at the address stated hereinabove. 

8 Disallowance 

In the event Contractor claims or receives payment from City for a service, reimbursement for which is later 
disallowed by City or State of California or United States Government, Contractor shall promptly refund the 
disallowed amount to City upon City's request At its option, City may offset the amount disallowed from any 
payment due or to become due to Contractor under this Agreement or any other Agreement 



. Taxes 

^Payment of any taxes, including California Sales and Use Taxes, levied upon this Agreement, the transaction, or the 
^services delivered pursuant hereto, shall be the obligation of Contractor. 

0. Payment Does Not Imply Acceptance of Work 

The granting of any progress payment by City, or the receipt thereof by Contractor, shall in no way lessen the liability 
of Contractor to replace unsatisfactory work or material although the unsatisfactory character of such work or 
material may not have been apparent or detected at the time such payment was made. Materials, components, or 
workmanship which do not conform to the Specifications will be rejected and shall be replaced by Contractor without 
delay. 

I Qualified Personnel 

Work under this Agreement shall be performed only by competent personnel under the supervision of and in the 
employment of Contractor. Contractor will conform with City's reasonable requests regarding assignment of 
personnel, but all personnel, including those assigned at City's request, shall be supervised by Contractor. 

1. Responsibility for Equipment 

City shall not ba-responsible for any damage to persons or property as a result of the use, misuse or failure of any 
equipment used by Contractor, or by any of its employees, even though such equipment be furnished, rented or 
loaned to Contractor by City. The acceptance or use of such equipment by Contractor or any of its employees shall 
be construed to mean that Contractor accepts full responsibility for and agrees to exonerate, indemnify, defend and 
save harmless City from and against any and all claims for any damage or injury of any type arising from the use, 
misuse or failure of such equipment, whether such damage be to the contractor, its employees, City employees or 
third parties, or to property belonging to any of the above. 



• 



ndependent Contractor pt 

Contractor shall be deemed at all times to be an independent Contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the 
manner in which Contractor performs the service required of Contractor by the terms of this Agreement. Contractor 
shall be liable for the acts and omissions of it, its employees and its agents. Nothing contained herein shall be 
construed as creating an employment or agency relationship between City and Contractor. 

Terms in this Agreement referring to direction from City shall be construed as providing for direction as to policy and 
the result of Contractor's work only and not as to the means by which such a result is obtained. 

4. Insurance 

a Without in any way limiting Contractor's liability pursuant to Section 15, "Indemnification and General Liability," 
of this Agreement, Contractor will maintain in force, during the full term of the Agreement, insurance in the 
following amounts and coverage: 

(1) Workers' Compensation, with Employers' Liability limits not less than $100,000 each accident 

(2) Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1 ,000,000.00 each occurrence Combined 
Single Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage. 

(3) Business Automobile Liability Insurance with not less than $1 ,000,000.00 each occurrence Combined Single 
Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage. 



i 



(4) Professional Liability insurance with limits not less than $3,000,000 each claim with respect to negligent acts, 
errors or omissions, and any deductible not to exceed $200,000 each claim. 

(5) Contractors Pollution Liability insurance with limits not less than $3,000,000 each occurrence, combined 
single limit for bodily injury and property damage with any deductible not to exceed $200,000 each 
occurrence 

b Commercial General Liability and Business Automobile Liability Insurance policies shall be endorsed to provide 

the following 



(1) Name as Additional Insured the City and County of San Francisco, its Officers, Agents, and Employees. 



(2) That such policies are primary insurance to any other insurance available to the Additional Insureds, with 
respect to any claims arising out of this contract, and that insurance applies separately to each insured 
against whom claim is made or suit is brought. 

All policies shall be endorsed to provide: 

Thirty (30) days' advance written notice to City of cancellation, non-renewal or reduction in coverage, mailed to 
the following address: 

Contract Clerk 

Department of Public Works 
Division Of Contract Administration 
875 Stevenson Street, Room 420 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Should any of the required insurance be provided under a claims-made form, Contractor shall maintain such 
coverage continuously throughout the term of this contract and, without lapse, for a period of three years beyond 
the contract expiration, to the effect that, should occurrences during the contract term give rise to claims made 
after expiration of the contract, such claims shall be covered by such claims-made policies. 

Should any of the required insurance be provided under a form of coverage that includes a general annual 
aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defense costs be included in such general annual 
aggregate limit, such general annual aggregate limit shall be double the occurrence or claims limits specified 
above. 






f. Certificates of insurance, in form and with insurers satisfactory to City, evidencing all coverages above shall be 
rt furnished to City before commencing any operations under this contract, with complete copies of policies 
promptly upon City request. 

g Approval of the insurance by City shall not relieve or decrease the liability of Contractor hereunder. 

h. This Agreement shall terminate immediately, without notice to Contractor, upon any lapse of required insurance 
coverage. 

15. Indemnification 

a To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall assume the defense of. indemnify and save harmless 
the City and its officers and employees (collectively "Indemnitees") from any claim, loss, damage, injury 
(including, without limitation, injury to or death of an employee of the Contractor or its subcontractors) and 
liability of every kind, nature and description (including, without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, 
court costs, attorneys' fees and costs of investigation) that arise directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from (1) 
the services under this Agreement, or any part thereof, (2) any act or omission of Contractor, and subcontractor 
to the Contractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, or anyone that they control (collectively 
"Liabilities"), even if such Liabilities are caused in part by the negligence of any Indemnitee, subject to the 
provisions set forth below in this Section 

b. The Contractor assumes no liability whatsoever for the sole negligence or willful misconduct of any Indenr 
the contractors of any Indemnitee. 

c. The Contractor's indemnification obligations for claims involving 'Professional Liability" (claims involving acts, 
errors, or omissions in the rendering of professional services) and "Economic Loss Only" (claims involving 
economic loss which are not connected with bodily injury or physical damage to property^ shall be limited to the 
proportionate extent of Contractor's negligence or other breach of duty 

16. Incidental and Consequential Damages 

Contractor shall be responsible for incidental and consequential damages resulting in whole or in part from 
Contractor's negligent acts or omissions. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation or any 
rights which City may have under applicable law 



* 



♦ 



17. Liability of City 

I City's obligations under this contract shall be limited to the payment of the compensation provided for in Section 6 of 
this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in no event shall City be liable, regardless of 
whether any claim is based on contract or tort, for Contractor's own special, consequential, indirect or incidental 
damages, including, but not limited to, lost profits, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the services 
performed in connection with this Agreement. 

8. Liquidated Damages 
Not Applicable 

9. Bankruptcy 

In the event that either party shall cease conducting business in the normal course, become insolvent, make a 
general assignment for the benefit of creditors, suffer or permit the appointment of a receiver for its business or 
assets or shall avail itself of, or become subject to, any proceeding under the Federal Bankruptcy Act or any other 
statute of any State relating to insolvency or the protection of rights of creditors, then at the option of the other party 
this Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and effect, and any property or rights of such other party, 
tangible or intangible, shall forthwith be returned to it. 

0. Termination 

In the event Contractor fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement, this Agreement shall be 
terminated and all of the Contractor's rights hereunder ended. Termination shall be effective after ten (10) days' 
written notice to Contractor. No new work will be undertaken after the date of receipt of any notice of termination, or 
five days after the date of the notice, whichever is earlier. In the event of such termination, Contractor shall be paid 
for its services under this Agreement, up to the date of termination, that have been performed to the satisfaction of 
City. City may terminate this Agreement for City's convenience and without cause at any time by giving Contractor 
thirty (30) days' written notice of such termination. In the event of such termination, Contractor shall be paid for its 
services that have been performed to the satisfaction of City under this Agreement, up to the date of termination. 

Upon termination of this Agreement, Contractor will submit an invoice to City for an amount which represents the 
value of services actually performed prior to the effective date of termination for which Contractor has not previously 
been compensated, except that in no event will the compensation paid for the month in which termination occurs be 
greater than the scheduled monthly fee multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which will be the days in the month 
elapsed prior to the termination and the denominator of which shall be 31 . Upon approval and payment of this 
invoice by City, City shall be under no further obligation to Contractor monetarily or otherwise. 

!1. Contractor's Default 

Failure or refusal of the Contractor to perform or do any act herein required shall constitute a default. In the event of 
any default, in addition to any other remedy available to the Director of Public Works, this contract may be 
terminated by the Director of Public Works pursuant to the terms of Section 20 herein Such termination shall not 
waive any other legal remedies available to the Director of Public Works. 

?2 Conflict of Interest 

Contractor states that it is familiar with provisions of Section 8.105 of the Charter of City, and Section 87100 et seq 
of the Government Code of the State of California, and certifies that it does not know of any facts which constitute a 
violation of said provisions 



23. Other Agreements between City and Contractor 

Contractor agrees that neither it nor any of Contractor's employees has any interest, however remote, in any other^i 
Agreement with City, whether or not such Agreement is with Contractor's firm, affiliate firms, or through separate ■ 
employment, except as expressly itemized in Appendix C, "Contractor's and Contractor's Employees' Interests in ' 
Other City Contracts," hereto attached. Failure to disclose such information will result in termination of this 
Agreement pursuant to Section 20 herein. 

24. Proprietary or Confidential Information of City 

Contractor understands and agrees that, in the performance of the work or services under this Agreement or in 
contemplation thereof, Contractor may have access to private or confidential information which may be owned or 
controlled by City and that such information may contain proprietary or confidential details, the disclosure of which tc 
third parties may be damaging to City. Contractor agrees that all information disclosed by City to Contractor shall b€ 
held in confidence and used only in performance of the Agreement. Contractor shall exercise the same standard of 
care to protect such information as a reasonably prudent contractor would use to protect its own proprietary data. 

25 Notices to the Parties 

All notices to be given by the parties hereto shall be in writing and served by depositing same in the United States 
Post Office, postage prepaid and registered as follows: 

To City: Department of Public Works 

Division of Contract Administration 
875 Stevenson Street, Room 420 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

To Contractor: GEOMATRIX Consultants, Inc 

100 Pine Street, 10 n Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

26. Ownership of Results 

Any interest of Contractor or its Subcontractors, in drawings, plans, specifications, studies, reports, memoranda, 
computation sheets or other documents prepared by Contractor or its Subcontractors in connection with services to 
be performed under this Agreement shall become the property of and will be transmitted to City. However. 
Contractor may retain and use copies for reference and as documentation of its experience and capabilities 

27 Audit and Inspection of Records 

Contractor agrees to maintain and make available to City during business hours accurate books and accounting 
records relative to its activities under this Agreement Contractor will permit City to audit, examine and make 
excerpts and transcripts from such books and records, and to make audits of all invoices, materials, payrolls, records 
or personnel and other data related to all other matters covered by this Agreement, whether funded in whole or in 
part under this Agre a ment. Contractor shall maintain such data and records in an accessible location and condition 
for a period of not less than five years after final payment under this Agreement or until after final audit has been 
resolved, whichever is later. The State of California or any Federal agency having an interest in the subject of this 
Agreement shall have the same rights conferred upon City by this Section 

28. Subcontracting 

Contractor is prohibited from subcontracting this Agreement or any part of it unless such subcontracting is approved 
by written instrument executed and approved in the same manner as this Agreement. Neither party shall, on the 
basis of this Agreement, contract on behalf of or in the name of the other party An Agreement made in violation 
this provision shall confer no rights on any party and shall be null and void 



• 



9. Assignment 

^ The services to be performed by Contractor are personal in character and neither this Agreement nor any duties or 
f obligations hereunder shall be assigned or delegated by Contractor unless approved by written instrument executed 
and approved in the same manner as this Agreement. 

0. Equal Opportunity Employment and Business Practices; Liquidated Damages 

Contractor agrees to comply fully with all provisions of Chapters 12B and 12D of the San Francisco Administrative 
Code, as amended from time to time. Said provisions are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this 
contract as though fully set forth. 

In the event Contractor willfully fails to comply with any of the provisions of Chapter 1 2D, Contractor shall be liable 
for liquidated damages for each contract in an amount equal to Contractor's net profit on the contract, or ten percent 
(1 0%) of the total amount of the contract, or one thousand dollars ($1 ,000), whichever is greatest. The amount of 
liquidated damages imposed will be determined by the Director of the HRC after investigation pursuant to Section 
12D.14(C). 

By entering into this contract, Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any liquidated damages assessed by the 
Director of the HRC shall be payable to City upon demand. Contractor further acknowledges and agrees that any 
liquidated damages assessed may be withheld from any monies due to Contractor on any contract with City. 

Pursuant to Section 12B.2(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code, a penalty of fifty dollars ($50) for each 
person for each calendar day during which such person was discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this 
contract may be deducted from payments due to Contractor. 

. Compliance with South Africa Divestment Ordinance; Liquidated Damages 

Not Applicable. 

!. MacBride Principles-Northern Ireland 

The City and County of San Francisco urges companies doing business in Northern Ireland to move towards 
resolving employment inequities, and encourages such companies to abide by the MacBride Principles. The City 
and County of San Francisco urges San Francisco companies to do business with corporations that abide by the 
MacBride Principles. 

5. Drug-Free Workplace Policy 

This section does not apply as Federal funds are not involved under this contract. 

t. Non-Waiver of Rights 

The omission by either party at any time to enforce any default or right reserved to it, or to require performance of 
any of the terms, covenants, or provisions hereof by the other party at the time designated, shall not be a waiver of 
any such default or r ght to which the party is entitled, nor shall it in any way affect the right of the party to enforce 
such provisions thereafter. 

5. Modification of Agreement 

This Agreement may not be modified, nor may compliance with any of its terms waived, except by written instrument 
executed and approved in the same manner as this Agreement. 



36. Administrative Remedy for Agreement Interpretation 

Should any question arise as to the meaning and intent of this Agreement, the question shall, prior to any other 
action or resort to any other legal remedy, be referred to the Director of Public Works who shall decide the true (H 
meaning and intent of the Agreement. 

37. Agreement Made in California; Venue 

The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of 
California, excluding its conflict of laws rules. Venue for all litigation relative to the formation, interpretation and 
performance of this Agreement shall be in San Francisco. 

38. Construction 
All paragraph captions are for reference only and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement. 

39. Entire Agreement 

This contract sets forth the entire Agreement between the parties, and supersedes all other oral or written provisions. 
This contract may be modified only as provided in Section 35. 

40. Tropical Hardwood and Virgin Redwood Ban 

The City and County of San Francisco urges contractors not to import, purchase, obtain, or use for any purpose, any 
tropical hardwood or tropical hardwood wood product, virgin redwood or virgin redwood wood product 

41. Ownership of Equipment 

Any equipment vehicles, computer programs (software licenses and media), etc purchased by the Contractor or its 
subcontractors in connection with services to be performed under this Agreement shall become property of and will 
be transmitted to the City. 

42. Guaranteed Maximum Costs 

a The City's obligations hereunder shall not at any time exceed the amount certified by the Controller for the 
purpose and period stated in such certification. 

b Except as may be provided by City ordinances governing emergency conditions, the City and its employees and 
officers are not authorized to request Contractor to perform services that would result in Contractor performing 
services that are beyond the scope of the services agreed upon in the contract unless the agreement is amended 
in writing and approved as required by law to authorize the additional services 

c The City and its employees and officers are not authorized to offer or promise !o Contractor additional funding for 
the contract which would exceed the maximum amount of funding provided for in the contract for Contractor s 
performance under the contract. Additional funding for the contract in excess of the maximum provided in the 
contract shall require lawful approval and certification by the Controller of the City and County of San Francisco. 
The City is not required to honor any offered or promised additional funding for a contract which exceeds the 
maximum provided in the contract which requires lawful approval and certification of the Controller when the 
lawful approval and certification by the Controller has not been obtained. 

d. The Controller is not authorized to make payments on any contract for which funds have not been certified as 
available in the budget of by supplemental appropriation 



43. Burma (Myanmar) Business Prohibition 



Contractor is not the government of Burma (Myanmar), a person or business entity organized under the laws of 
Burma (Myanmar) or a "prohibited person or entity" as defined in Section 12J 2(G) of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code. The City reserves the right to terminate this contract for default if the Contractor violates the 
terms of this section. 



% 



Chapter 12J of the San Francisco Administrative Code is hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth 
herein. The failure of Contractor to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed a material breach of 
^contract. In the event that Contractor fails to comply in good faith with any of the provisions of Chapter 12J of the 
"san Francisco Administrative Code, Contractor shall be liable for liquidated damages for each violation in an amount 
equal to Contractor's net profit under the contract, or 1 0% of the amount of the contract, or $1 ,000, whichever is 
greatest. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the liquidated damages assessed shall be payable to the City 
upon demand and may be set off against any moneys due to the Contractor from any City contract. 

I Sunshine Ordinance 

Contracts, contractor's bids, responses to requests for proposals and all other records of communications between 
the department and persons or firms seeking contracts shall be open to inspection immediately after a contract has 
been awarded. Nothing in this provision requires the disclosure of a private person's or organization's net worth or 
other proprietary financial data submitted for qualification for a contract or other benefit until and unless that person 
or organization is awarded the contract or benefit. Information provided which is covered by this subdivision will be 
made available to the public upon request. 

.. Non-Discrimination in City Contracts and Benefits Ordinance 

a. Contractor Shall Not Discriminate . In the performance of this Agreement, Contractor agrees not to discriminate 
on the basis of the fact or perception of a person's race, color, creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, 
sexual orientation, gender identity, domestic partner status, marital status, disability or Acquired Immune 
Deficiency Syndrome or HIV status (AIDS/HIV status) against any employee of, any City employee working with, 
or applicant for employment with Contractor, in any of Contractor's operations within the United States, or against 
any person seeking accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, services, or membership in all business, 
social, or other establishments or organizations operated by Contractor. 

b. Subcontracts . Contractor shall incorporate by reference in all subcontracts the provisions of Sections 12B.2(a), 

I 12B.2(c)-(k), and 12C.3 of the San Francisco Administrative Code and shall require all subcontractors to comply 
f with such provisions. Contractor's failure to comply with the obligations in this subsection shall constitute a 
material breach of this Agreement. 

c. Non-Discrimination in Benefits . Contractor does not as of the date of this Agreement and will not during the term 
of this Agreement, in any of its operations in San Francisco or where the work is being performed for the City or 
elsewhere within the United States, discriminate in the provision of bereavement leave, family medical leave, 
health benefits, membership or membership discounts, moving expenses, pension and retirement benefits or 
travel benefits, as well as any benefits other than the benefits specified above, between employees with 
domestic partners and employees with spouses, and/or between the domestic partners and spouses of such 
employees, where the domestic partnership has been registered with a governmental entity pursuant to state or 
local law authorizing such registration, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 12B.2(b) of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code. 

d. Condition to Contract . As a condition to this Agreement, Contractor shall execute the "Chapter 12B Declaration: 
Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits" form (Form HRC-12B-101) with supporting documentation and 
secure the approval of the form by the San Francisco Human Rights Commission 

e. Incorporation of Administrative Code Provisions by Reference . The provisions of Chapters 12B and 12C of the 
San Francisco Administrative Code are incorporated in this Section by reference and made a part of this 
Agreement as though fully set forth herein. Contractor shall comply fully with and be bound by all of the 
provisions that apply to this Agreement under such Chapters of the Administrative Code, including but not Mm 

to the remedies provided in such Chapters. Without limiting the foregoing, Contractor understands that pursuant 
to Section 12B 2(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code, a penalty of S50 for each person for each 
calendar day during which such person was discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this Agreement 
may be assessed against Contractor and/or deducted from any payments due Contractor. 



46. Submitting False Claims: Monetary Penalties 

Any contractor, subcontractor or consultant who commits any of the following acts shall be liable to the City for three 
times the amount of damages which the City sustains because of the act of that contractor, subcontractor or 
consultant. A contractor, subcontractor or consultant who commits any of the following acts shall be liable to the Cit 
for the costs, including attorney's fees, of a civil action brought to recover any of those penalties or damages, and 
may be liable to the City for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each false claim: (a) Knowingly presents or causes to 
be presented to an officer or employee of the City a false claim or request for payment or approval, (b) Knowingly 
makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement to get a false claim paid or approved by the 
City, (c) Conspires to defraud the City by getting a false claim allowed or paid by the City, (d) Knowingly makes, 
uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or 
transmit money or property to the City, (e) Is a beneficiary of an inadvertent submission of a false claim to the City. 
subsequently discovers the falsity of the claim, and fails to disclose the false claim to the City within a reasonable 
time after discovery of the false claim. 



f 



* 



WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day first mentioned above. 
| CITY CONTRACTOR 

Recommended by: <^/y^^!^^^^<^p 



GEOMATRIX Consultants, Inc. 




Don Eng, Chief, Bureau oFConstruction Management 



Approved as to Form: 
Louise H. Renne 
City Attorney 



M 



y AMor 



*:. ^ 



Deputy City AMorney 



o 



Approved: 




Approved: 



ii 



Ia 



Edwin Lee I 
Director of Purchasing 



Name 




100 Pine Street, 10 !n Floor 




Address 




San Francisco CA 


94111 



City 



State 



Zip 



I have read and understood Sec. 32, the City's 
statement urging companies doing business in 
Northern Ireland to move towards resolving 
employment inequities, encouraging compliance 
with the MacBride Principles, and urging San 
Francisco companies to do business with 
corporations that abide by the MacBride 
Principles. 



By >pU~ 






Sigr/ature 


C. face U/cb 




Name 

fas) 


Title 

7>7 -7^77 


Area Code 


Phone Number 



Federal Employer Number 



Approved: 



Only Required if >$50 & Non-Project Related Services 
Director of Administrative Services 



APPENDIX A 

SCOPE OF WORK 

i 

The Consultant shall provide Environmental and Civil Engineering Consultation Services pertaining to 
Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island (and related areas involving former Federal authority now part of Base 
Conversion evaluation and reuse). 

Services shall include, but not be limited to review and comment on the Navy's remedial investigations, feasibility reports 
and other relevant documents pertaining to their investigations and site cleanup activities. 

GEOMATRIX shall act as prime consultant directing the activities of subconsultants Olivia Chen Consultants, Inc., Micro 
Analytical Labs, Inc., AFA Construction, Inc., and Chromalab, Inc. Additional subconsultants may be added as long as 
overall HRC participation goals are maintained. 



APPENDIX B 
| SCHECULE OF VALUES 



GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS, INC. 
SCHEDULE OF VALUES 



* 



Schedule of Values 
Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 



Personnel 
Category 


Hourly Rate 

($) per 
Classification 


Fringe 
Benefits 
(32.5% of 

Labor) 


Overhead 

(161.13% of 

Labor) 


Fee 

(10% of Total 

Cost) 


Total Hours 
Rate ($) 


Principal 


41.35 - 75.00 


13.44 - 24.38 


66.63 - 


120.85 


12.14 - 22.02 


133.56 - 242.24 


Senior II 


31.25 - 43.23 


10.16 - 14.05 


50.35 - 


69.66 


9.18 - 12.69 


100.94 - 139.63 


Senior 1 


30.00 - 41.20 


9.75 - 13.39 


48.34 - 


66.39 


8.81 - 12.10 


96.90 - 133.07 


Project II 


25.73 - 37.00 


8.36 - 12.03 


41.46 - 


59.62 


7.56 - 10.86 


83.11 - 119.51 


Project 1 


20.20 - 33.00 


6.57 - 10.73 


32.55 - 


53.17 


5.93 - 9.69 


65.24 - 106.59 


Staff II 


19.24 - 30.00 


6.25 - 9.75 


31.00 - 


48.34 


5.65 - 8.81 


62.14 - 96.90 


Staff 1 


14.91 - 30.00 


4.85 - 9.75 


24.02 - 


48.34 


4.38 - 8.81 


48.16 - 96.90 


Senior Technician 


14.91 - 21.74 


4.85 - 7.07 


24.02 - 


35.03 


4.38 - 638 


48.16 - 70.22 


Field Technician 


12.00 - 14.91 


3.90 - 485 


19.34 - 


24.02 


3.52 - 4.38 


38.76 - 48.16 


CAD/Graphics 


16.50 - 2861 


5.36 - 9.30 


25.59 - 


46.10 


4.84 - 8.40 


53.29 - 92.41 


Project Assistant 


12.00 - 23.27 


3.90 - 7.56 


19.34 - 


37.49 


352 - 6.83 


38.76 - 75.16 


Technical Editor 


22.46 - 22.45 


7.30 - 7.30 


36.19 - 


36.19 


659 - 6.59 


72.54 - 72.54 


Technical Typist 


15.87 - 21.50 


516 - 6.99 


25.57 - 


34.64 


4.65 - 631 


51.26 - 69.44 


Production 
Assistant 


6.00 - 15 00 


1 95 - 4.88 


9 67 • 


24.17 


1.76 - 4 40 


19.38 - 48.45 



• 



CHROMALAB, INC. 

(SECONDARY LABORATORY) 

SCHEDULE OF VALUES AND CERTIFICATION 



JHROMALAB, INC. 



July, 98 



Environmental Services (SDB) 



PRICE LIST EXCLUSIVELY FOR GEOMATRIX 

Soil and Water same price 5 Day Turnaround Time 



TPH-Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 



TPH gasoline/BTEX, gasoline, or BTEX 

TPH gasoline/BTEX with MTBE 

TPH diesel 

TPH diesel and motor oil (TEPH) 

TPH extractable scan, other hydrocarbons 

Fuel Oxygenates imtbe. tame, etbe, dipe, TBAi 

Oil and grease 



EPA 5030/8015/8020 

EPA 5030/8015 /8020 (MTBE confirmed by MS) 

EPA 3550 or 351 0/80 15M 

EPA3550or351O/8015M 

EPA 3550 or 351 0/801 5M 

EPA 8260M 

Std Meth 5520 E&F or B&F, EPA 413.1 



Organic Analysis 

Volatile halocarbons (CIHC) 

Volatile aromatics 

Volatile organics 

Semivolatile organics 

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH, PNA) EPA 8270 igc/ms) 

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH, PNA) EPA 8310 (hplCI 

Phenols 

Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs 

PCBs 

Nitroaromatics and Nitramines (Explosives) 

Glycols 

Alcohols 

Metals Ana/ysis-TTLC 

LUFT heavy metals (5 metals) 
RCRA metals (8 metals) 
Priority pollutants (13 metals) 
Title 22 (CAM 17 metals) 
Individual metals (price per metal) 
Mercury (cold vapor) 
Hexavalent chromium 



EPA 8010 

EPA 8020 

EPA 8240 or 8260 

EPA 8270 



EPA 8270 
EPA 8080 
EPA 8080 
EPA 8330 
EPA 8015M 
EPA 801 5M 



PCBs in oil 67.50 
Water 250.00 



EPA 6010 (ICP) 

EPA 6010 and 7470/7471 

EPA 6010 and 7470/7471 

EPA 6010 and 7470/7471 

EPA 6010, 7420 

EPA 7470/7471 

EPA 7196 



Extraction Methods and General Chemistry Tests 



TCLP, STLC (CAM WET) extraction 

TCLP for volatile organics (ZHE) 

RCI (reactivity, corrosivity. and ignitabllily in scii) 

pH or Specific Conductance 

TDS, TSS, or Settleable Solids (SS) 

% Moisture/ dry weight result 

Flashpoint 

Compositing and disposal fee (per container) 

Air Analysis- Samples in Tedlar bags, includes RUSH charges 
TPH gasoline/BTEX EPA 5030/8015/8020 

Halogenated organics EPA 8010 

Volatile organics by OC/MS EPA 8240 



EPA 1311/W.E.T. 

EPA 1311 

CA Title 22 

EPA 9040/9045/9050 

EPA 160.1, 160.2, 160.5 

EPA SW 846 

EPA 1010 



Water 9.50 



$60.00 
75.00 
60.00 
75.00 
75.00 

150.00 
50.00 



80.00 
80.00 
150.00 
275.00 
150.00 
175.00 
150.00 
125.00 
100.00 
Soil 175.00 
125.00 
125.00 



80.00 

1 15.00 

125.00 

150.00 

22.50 

45.00 

55.00 



75.00 
100.00 
67.50 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
35.00 
3 75 



Soi 



Other Services: 

Sample pickup in the Bay Area Mo charge 

Filtration 10.00 

Silica gel cleanup . 15.00 

Crushing & homogenizing sample quote 

EPA Level 2 Report No charge on request 

Chromatograms, each 5.00 

Reprinted report (5 10 minimum) 1.00/page 
Electronic report (EDD) add 5% 

Minimum invoice $50 Minimum Visa/MC $20 



Materials: 

Glass VOA, I I amber glass, plastic sample jars 
Brass/stainless sleeve 
2 1/2 gallon cubitainer 



Rush Charges: 

Three days turnaround 

48 hours 

24 hours 

Same day. Overnight, or Weekend 



100.00 
120.00 
250.00 



No charge 

3.00 

10.00 



add 25% 

add 50% 

add 100% 

add 200% 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA— HEALTH ANO WELFARE AGENCY PETE WILSON. Governor 



DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 

?MtRKELEY WAY 
3ERKELEY. CA 9i70-llOI I 

(510)540-2800 June 3, 1996 




Eric T. Tarn Certificate No.: 1094 

Chromalab, Inc. ^CT) //, 

1 220 Quarry Lane J Ufy j 

Pleasanton, CA 94566-4756 % J$gn 

Dear Mr. Tarn: 



This is to advise you that the laboratory named above has been certified as an environmental testing 
laboratory pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Laboratory Improvement Act 
of 1988 (Health and Safety Code, Division 1, Part 2, Chapter 7.5, commencing with Section 1010). 

The fields of testing for which this laboratory has been certified under this Act are indicated in the 
enclosed "List of Approved Fields of Testing and Analytes." Certification shall remain in effect until 
January 31, 1998 unless revoked. This certificate is subject to an annual fee as prescribed by Section 
1017(a), Health and Safety Code, on the anniversary date of the certificate. 

Please note that your laboratory is required to notify the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation 
Program of any major changes in the laboratory such as the transfer of ownership, change of 
laboratory director, change in location, or structural alterations which may affect adversely the 
quality of analyses (Section 1014(b), California Health & Safety Code). 

Please note that the new regulations pertaining to environmental laboratories were adopted on 
December 5, 1994 and may be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, 
Chapter 19, Sections 64801 through 64827. 

Your continued cooperation is essential in order to establish a reputation for the high quality of the 
data produced by environmental laboratories certified by the State of Califor: 

[f you have additional questions, pie la S. Dente at (510) 540-2S00 

Since: 




George C. Kulasingam. Ph.D., Manager 
Environmental Laboratory 
Accreditation Program 



Enclosure 



ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACC.RE3 ITATICN/REGISTRAT ION 
List of Approved Fields of Testing and Analyses 

ChrcmaLab, Inc. TELEPHONE No: (510) 434-1919 CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 1094 

1220 Quarry Lane CALIFORNIA COUNTY: Contra Costa EXPIRATION OATE: 1/31/93 

Pleasanton, CA 



Microbiology of Prinking Water and Wastewater ( > 

Total Coliforms in Orinking Water by Multiple Tube Fermentation -- H 

Fecal Coliforms/E. Coli in Orinlcing Water by MTr - N 

Total Coliforms in Orinlcing Water by Membrane Filter Technics M 

Fecal Coliforms/E. Coli in Orinlcing Water by Memcrane Filter Technics - n 

Total Coliforms and E. Coli in Orinlcing Water by .HMO -MUG - N 

Total Coliforms in Orinlcing Water by Clark's Presence/Absence H 

Fecal Coliforms/E. Coli in Orinlcing Water by Clark's Presence/Absence N 

Heterotrophic Plate Count - - N 

Total Coliforms in Wastewater by Hultiple Tube Fermentation - N 

Fecal Coliforms in Wastewater by HTF N 

Total Coliforms in Wastewater by Membrane Filter Technics N 

Fecal Coliforms in Wastewater by Membrane Filter Technics - M 

Fec3l Streptococci or Enterococci by Multiple Tube Technics - N 

Fecal Strepcococci or Enterococci by Membrane Filter Technics - N 

Inorganic Chemistry and Physical Properties of prinking Water excluding Toxic Chemical Elements 
< * 



Alkalinity"- N 2.12 Sulfate N 

Calcium N 2.13 Total Fi Iterable Residue 

Chloride N and Conductivity -- N 

Corrosivity N 2.H Iron (Colorimetric Mechods Only) N 

Fluoride N 2.15 Hanganese (Colorimetric Methods Only) - N 

Hardness -- - N 2.16 Phosphate, ortho - N 

Magnesium N 2.17 Silica (Colorimetric Methods Only) N 

MBAS N 2.13 Cyanide N 

Nitrate N 

Nitrite '- N 

Soaiur] - N 



Analysis of Toxic Chemical Elements in Prinking Water (04-11-91) 

Arsenic Y 3.11 Silver - - n 

3ariun n 3.12 Zinc - N 

Cacnium N 3.13 Aluminum - N 

Chrcnium, total N 3.14 Asbestos - H 

Copper Y 3.15 EPA Method 200.7 Y 

Iron n 3.16 EPA Method 200.3 (Unregulated Elements 

Lead r and Lead Only) N 

Manganese N 3.17 Antimony N 

Mercury Y 3.18 Beryllium N 

Selenium N 3.19 Nickel - N 

3.20 Thallium Y 



n r - : ni c r^ij-rv r.f nrinrim ware~ (-ie3S'jr»-epc ^v ^C/MS combination) (01-?6- c 0) 



EPA Method 501.3 

EPA Method 524.2 

EPA Method 525 •• 

EPA Method 513 -• 



5 Organic Chemistry of Prinki-a Water (excludirg measurements by GC/MS ccrroi na t i on ) (01-13-93) 

.1 EPA Method 501.1 n 5.16 EPA Mechod 543 N 

.2 EPA Method 501.2 N 5.17 EPA Method 549 N 

.3 EPA Method 502.1 Y 5.13 EPA Hethod 550 N 

.4 EPA Method 502.2 Y 5.19 EPA Method 550.1 N 

.5 EPA Method 503.1 Y 5.20 EPA Method 551 N 

.6 EPA Method 504 n 5.21 EPA Method 552 N 

■ 7 SPA Method 505 u 

EPA "ethod 506 N 

EPA Method 507 N 

EPA Method 5C3 N 

EPA Method 508A N 

EPA Method 510.1 H 

EPA Method 515.1 n 

EPA Method 531 . 1 h 

EPA Method 547 H 



CERTIFICATE MUM8ER: 1094 
EXPIRATIOM DATE: 1/31/98 



Radiocheriistrv ( ) 



6.1 Gross Alpha and Seta Radiation N 6.11 Cross Alpha by Co-precipitation 

6.2 Total Radium H 6.12 Radium 223 



6.3 Radium 226 N 6.13 Radioactive Iodine 

6.4 Uraniun H 6.K Gross Alpha i Beta in Hazardous Wastes 

6.5 Radon 222 N 6.15 Alpha Emitting Radfixi Isotopes 

6.6 Radioactive Cesium H in Haz. Wastes 



6.7 Iodine 131 S 6.16 Radium 223 in Hazardous Wastes 

6.3 Radioactive Strontium N 

6.9 Tritium H 

6.10 Gairma and Photon Emitters H 



7 Shellfish Sanitation ( ) 

7.1 Shellfish meat Microbiology M 

7.2 Paralytic Shellfish Poison H 

7.3 Ocmoic Acid H 

8 Acuatfc Tonicity gioassavs ( ^ 



3.1 Hazardous Waste Aquatic Toxicity 3ioassay (Title 22. CCR, 66261.24(a)(6)) 

3.2 Wastewater Testing According to Kopperdahl (1976) using freshwater Fish. 

8.3 Wastewater Testing According to EPA/600/4-85/013 using Freshwater and/or Marine Orjanisms ■ 

8.4 Wastewater Testing by EPA Method 1000.0 

8.5 Wastewater Testing by EPA Method 1002.0 

3.6 Wastewater Testing by EPA Method 1003.0 

8.7 Wastewater Testing by EPA Method 1CC6 

8.8 Wastewater Testing by EPA Method 1007 

8.9 Wastewater Testing by EPA Method 1009 

8.10 Wastewater Testing According to Anderson, et. al. (1990) using Giant Kelp ( Hacrrcvst is pvrifera ) 

8.11 Wastewater Testing According to Anderson, et. al . (1990) using Red Abalone ( Hal 'eyji njfescens ) . 

8.12 Wastewater Testing According to Oinnel and Stober (1987) using Purple Sea Urchin 
(Scrcngvlo centrotus curcuratus) 

3.13 Wastewater Testing According to Oinnel and StoDer (1987) using Red Sea Urchin 
( Stronqvlocentrotus f ranciscanus ) 

8.14 Wastewater Testing According to Oinnel and Stober (1987) using Sand Oollar 

(Oe-draster excentncus ) 

3.15 Wastewater Testing According to procecvire E 724-39 (ASTM, 1939) using Pacific Oyster 
(Crassostr-a gigas ) 

3.16 Wastewater Testing According to procedure E 724-39 (ASTM, 1939) using California 3ay Mussel 
( rNtilus e^ylii) 

8.17 Wastewater Testing According to Standard Methods (APHA, 1939) using an alga 

CS'SClt^ner-a, costatun) 

5.18 Wastewater Testing According to EPA/6C0/4-90/027 using freshwater and/or Marine Crgamsra 

9 Physical Proper: i -s Toting of n.atardcus Waste (04-11-91) 



9.1 Ignitability by Flashpoint determination (Title 22, CCJ*. 66261.21) 

9.2 Corrosivity - cH determination (Title 22, CCR, 66261.22) 

9.3 Corrosivity • Corrosivity tcwarcs steel (Title 22, CCR, 66261.22) ■ 

9.4 Reactivity (Title 22, CCR, 66261.23) 



1 Q l"cr;;n l: -- ,„ , s . rv irij t ? , . ^ c-r^'cnl E'.i~-*nts o* "a rardcus waste 

10.1 Antincny 10.7 Cobalt 

) n 7200( ) 

7C41( i - 720K ) 

10.2 Arsenic 10.8 Cocper 
706Q(12-22-?5 ) ' 7210(01-09-90) 

) M 7211 ( ) 

13.3 Sariun 10.9 Lead 

7080( ) >< 7420(01-09-90) 

7081( ) h 7421(12-22-95) 

'-■- 3erylliun 10.10 Mercury 

7090( ) h 7470( ) 

7091 ( ) >< 7471(05-13-94) 

10.5 Caen i urn u olybder,um 

7130c ) 1 7i 30( ) 

713K ) H 7t&U ) 

10.6 Chromium, total 10.12 Nickel 

7190: ) s 7520( ) 

7191( ) k 



CERTIFICATE NUH8E3: 1094. 
EXPIRATION OATE: 1/31/93 

10.13 Selenium 

7740( ) --- 

7741(12-22-95) --- 

10. 14 Silver 

7760( ) --- 

776U ) — 

10.15 Thallium 

7S40( ) --- 

7841(12-22-95) 

10.16 Vanadium 

7910( ) --- 

791K ) --- 

10.17 Zinc 

7950C ) --- 

795K ) --- 

10.18 Chrcmiura (VI) 

7195( ) --- 

7196(04-11-91) 

7197( ) ---• 

7198( ) 



10.19 Cyanide 

9010(01-13-93) Y 

10.20 Fluoride 

300. 0( ) h 

340. 1< ) h 

340. 2( ) h 

340.3( ) h 

10.21 Sulfide 

9030(05-06-94) y 

Total Organic Lead 

( ) N 

EPA Method 6010(01-13-93) Y 

EPA Method 6020( ) N 



10.22 



10.23 
10.24 



Extraction Tests of Hazardous Uas ti» (04-11-91) 

California Waste Extraction Test (UET) (Title 22, CCS, 66261.100, Appendix II) 
Extracti-on Prcceoure Toxicity 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) All Classes 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Inorganics Only 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Extractables Only 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Volatiles Only 



Organic Chemistry of Hazardous Uaste (measurement bv GC/HS combination) 



EPA Method 8240(06-05-39) 

EPA Method 8250( ) 

EPA method 8270(06-05-39) 

EPA Method 8230( ) 

EPA Method 8290( ) 

EPA Method 3260(01-13-93) 



Organic Chemistry of Hazardous waste (excluding measurements by GC/HS combination) 



EPA Hethod 8010(03-13-38) 
EPA Method 8015(03-18-38) 
EPA Method 8020(03-18-38) 

EPA Hethod 8030( ) 

EPA Method 8040(03-18-33) 

EPA Hethod 8060( ) 

EPA Method 8030(03-18-33) 

EPA Method 8090( ) 

EPA Hethod 3100(01-13-93) 

EPA Hethod 8120( ) 

EPA Method 8140( ) 

EPA Hethod 3150( ) 



13.13 EPA Method 8310(06-03-96) Y 

13.14 EPA Hethod 632 ( ) N 

13.15 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

CLUFT Hanual) (03-13-33) - Y 

13.16 EPA Method 801K ) H 

13.17 EPA Method 802K ) H 

13.18 EPA Hethod 8070( ) N 

13.19 EPA Hethod 8110C ) N 

13.20 EPA Hethod 3141( ) H 

13.21 EPA Hethod 8330(06-03->6) Y 



14 3ulx Asbestos Analysis ( ) 

14.1 IX or Greater Ast-estos Concentrations (Title 22, CCR , 66261.24(a)(2)(A)) 



5ubStanr;s Regulated <,'rder tie California Safe Printing Water ard Toxic Enforcement Act 
(procosi t'on 65) and Hot Included in Other listed Groups. 



Wastewater Inprcanic Chenistr-. 



ients and Oemand (04-11-01) 



Acidity N 

Alkalinity N 

Amnion ia H 

3iac.lemcal 0»ygen Derjr^ H 

3oron Y 

3romide N 

Calcium Y 

c9CO N 

Chemical Oxygen Oe-jnc N 

Chloride N 

Chlorine 3esicual, total N 

Cyanide n 



16.13 Cyanide amenable to CMorinat ion 

16.14 Fluoride 

16.15 Hardness 

16.16 Kjeldahl Micrcgen 

16.17 Magnesium 

16.18 Nitrate 

16.19 Nitrite 

16.20 Oil and Grease 

16.21 Organic Caroon 

16.22 Oxygen, Oissolved 



CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 1094. 
EXPIRATION DATE: 1/31/98 



16.23 
16.24 
16.25 
16.26 
16.27 
16.28 
16.29 
16.20 
16.31 
16.32 
16.33 
16.34 
16.35 
16.36 
16.37 
16.38 



17 

17. 

•.7. 
17. 
17. 
17. 
17. 
W. 
17. 
17. 
17. 
17. 
17. 
17. 
17. 
17, 
17. 
17. 



pH T 

Phenols M 

Phosphate, ortho M 

Phosphorus, tocal N 

Potassium 1 

Residue, Tocal H 

Residue, Filterable (TDS) M 

Residue, Nonf i I terable (TSS) N 

Residue, Setcteable CSS) N 

Residue, Volatile N 

Silica T 

Sodium V 

Specific Conductance — T 

Sulfate N 

Sulfide (includes total i soluble) - N 
Sulfite N 

Tonic Chemical Elements in Was tewater (04-11-91) 



A I urn i num 

Antimony ■ 

Arsenic • 

Sarium 

Beryl I ium 

Cadmium --^rj- — 
Chromium (Vt) -• 
Chromium, total 

Cobalt 

Copper 

Cold 

I ridium 

I ron - 

Lead 

Manganese 

Mercury — 

Molybder.un 



16.39 Surfactants (HBAS) N 

16.40 Tannin and lignin N 

16.41 Turbidity m 

16.42 Iron (Color imetric Only) N 

16.43 Manganese (Colorimetric Only) H 

16.4-4 Total Recoverable 

Petroleum Hydrocarbons Y 

16.45 Total Organic Malides N 



17.18 
17.19 
17.20 
17.21 
17.22 
17.23 
17.24 
17.25 
17.26 
17.27 
17.23 
17.29 
17.30 
17.31 
17.32 
17.33 
17.34 
17.35 



Nickel 

Osmium 

Palladium 

Platinum 

Rhodium 

Ruthenium 

Selenium 

Si Iver 

Strcntium 

Thai I lum 

rfn 

T i taniun 

Vanadium 

Zirc 

EPA Method 200.7 
EPA Method 200.8 

DC? 

Asbestos 



18 Oroanic Chemistry of wastewater (measurement s bv GC/*S cc^O'ration (01-25-90) 



-.3.1 
18.2 
13.3 
13.4 
13.5 



19.1 
-.9.2 
19.3 
19.4 

••'.5 
19.6 

23 



20.2 



•3.3 



EPA Method 624 - 
EPA Method 625 - 
EPA Method 1613 
EPA Hethod 1625 
EPA Hethod 613 - 



19 Organic Chemistry of Uas:?waf>r (ese'.u d ino measure-rents by GC/^S C<;"bin a ricn3 (C4 



EPA Method 601 
EPA Method 602 
EPA Method 603 
EPA Method 604 
EPA Method 605 
EPA Method 6C6 
EPA Method 607 



Ln?rg;nic Chemistry ard Tcxic Chr-ntal ilf 



• } 


B 


EPA 


Method 608 


I ■ 


9 


EPA 


Method 609 


• 1 


10 


EPA 


Method 610 


I 1 


11 


E = A 


Method 611 


• • 


12 


EPA 


Method 632 


\ : 


13 


EPA 


Method 619 


p 




ctfc 


Residues 



Processed Foods by One of the Following Methods 

Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry 

Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrophotometry 

Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry 

Color i me try - - 

Raw Commodities by One of the Following Methods 

Atcmic Absorption Spectrophotometry 

Inductively Couoved Plasma Atomic Emission Speetrcpnoccmetry 

Inductively Couoled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry ■■ 

Colorimetric -- 

Oairy Products by One of the Following " - 

Atomic Absorption Spec trophoCOmetry ----- 

Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrophotometry 
:^uctively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry ■■ 

Co I or i me try 






CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 1094. 

EXPIRATION OATE: 1/31/98 /*S 

20.4 Feed Products by One of the FW lowing Methods 

Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry ■ u 

Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroohotometry ., 

Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrcmetry — N 

Co I or i me try m 

21 Organic Che-nistry of Pesticide Residues in Food (measurements bv GC/HS) ( > 

21.1 Gas Chrcmatograpn ic/Mass Spectrometric Hethods in Processed Foods , 

21.2 Cas Chroma tograph ic/Mass Spectrometric Hethods in Raw Commodities N 

21.3 Gas Chrcmatographic/Mass Spectrometric Methods in Dairy Products ., 

21. i Gas Chrcmatograch ic/Mass Spectrometric Methods in Fee-c Products N 

22 Organic Cheniscrv of Pesticide Residues in Food (Excluding Measurement bv GC/MS Combination) - 

C > 

22.1 Halogenated Compounds in Processed Foods by One of the Following Methods 

Gas Chromatography - - - N 

High Pressure liquid Chromatography N 

Liquid Chromatography/Hass Spectrometry - H 

22.2 Organophosphorous Comcounds in Processed Foods by One of the Following Methods 

Gas Chroma tograchy — - - N 

High Pressure licuid Chromatography -- N 

Liquid Chromatography/Hass Spectrometry - N 

22.3 Carbamates in Processed Foods by Cne of the Following Methods 

Gas Chromatography N 

High Pressure Liquid Chromatography - N 

Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry - N 

22.4 Halogenated Ccmpcurds in Raw Commodities by Cne of the Following Methods 

Gas Chromatography - " H 

High Pressure Liquid Chromatography H 

Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry N 

22.5 OrganochosDhorous Compounds in Raw Corrmod i t i es by One of the Following Methods 

Gas Chromatography -- N 

Hign Pressure Liquid Chromatography - - 4 

Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry -- -- H 

22.6 Carbamates in Saw Commodities by Cne of the Following Methods 

Gas Chromatography - -- "" " - H 

Hign Pressure Liquid Chromatography N 

Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry - N 

22.7 Halogenated Compounds in Dairy Procucts by Cne of the Following Methods 

Gas Chromatography -- " N 

High Pressure Liquid Chromatography N 

Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry H 

22.3 Organophosphorous Compounds in Oairy Products by Cne of Che Following Methods 

Gas Chromatography "" H 

Hign Pressure Liquid Chromatcgraohy N 

Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry H 

22.9 Carbamates in Dairy Products by Cne of the Following Methods 

Ga3 Chrcmatcgrac^y N 

Hign Pressure Liquid Chroma tcgraohy N 

liquid Chromatogractfiy/Mass Spectrometry N 

22.10 Halogenated Caxx>unds in Feed Procucts by Cr; of the Following Methods 

Gas Chromatograohy •- " " H 

.Hig.-i Pressure Liquid Chroma tography N 

Licuid Chrcmjt3graDny/ u ass Spectrometry H 

22.11 Organocnoscnorous Compounds in feed Products by Cne of cne Following MetnodS 

Gas Chrcmatograchy N 

Hign Pressure liquid Chromatograohy H 

liquid Chromatograony/Hass Spectrometry N 

22.12 Carbamates in feed Procucts by Cne of the Following Methods 

Gas Chromatography N 

Hign Pressure Liquid Chromatography N 

liquid Chromj:cgracny/ u ass Spectrometry N 




BEPLV TO 

ATTENTION CF 



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS — MRD 

HTRW MANDATORY CENTER OF EXPERTISE 

12565 WEST CENTER ROAO 

OMAHA. NEBRASKA 68144-3869 

December 6, 1996 




Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste 
Center of Expertise 



Chromalab, Inc. 
1220 Quarry Lane, #C 
Pleasanton, California 



94566-4756 



Gentlemen : 

Thi-s- correspondence addresses the ongoing validation status 
of Chromalab, Inc. of Pleasanton, California by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste 
Center of Expertise (HTRW CX) for HTRW analysis. 

With the inclusion of the recent successful analysis for 
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Method 8310, your laboratory 
has successfully analyzed performance evaluation samples as 
listed below: 



METHOD 



PARAMETERS 






8260A Volatile Organics 

8260A Volatile Organics 

8021 Volatile Organics 

8021 Volatile Organics 

8020 Aromatic Volatile Organics 

8020 Aromatic Volatile Oraanics 



Water" 1 

Solids 
Wate 

Solids 

er (3. 

Solids 



8270A Ser. Lie Organics 
8270A Semivolatile Organics 



Wate: 
Solids 131 



8081 Or: 3 rine Pesticides ter ; 

8081 Organochlorine Pestic: '-"-._ Solids 

8081 Polychiorinated Biphenyls Wat< 

8081 Polychiorinated Biphenyls Solids' 3 ' 

8310 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Water 13 ' 

8310 ' Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Solids 

SW-84 6 TAL Metals l Water : 

SW-846 TAL Metals ' 5:iids' : ' 



413. 1 






Grease 



Water 



RFcn nm 



MICRO ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 
(PRIMARY LABORATORY) 

SCHEDULE OF VALUES AND CERTIFICATION 



Micro Analytical Laboratories, Inc. 

1998 Price Schedule For 
Geomatrix 

Effective 7/15/98 
Total Lead By Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (Flame or Furnace) 





3-10 Davs 


24 Hours 


Rush 

CPriori tv or 
Overnight Response) 


Paint Chips 


13.00 


15.00 


20.00 


Soil /Solid Waste 


13.00 


15.00 


20.00 


Dust Wipes;,. 


13.00 


15.00 


20.00 


Air Filters 


13.00 


15.00 


20.00 


Drinking Water 


15.00 


15.00 





Total Metals by ICP - Solids, Water, Air Filters 





10 Davs 


3-5 Davs 


24 Hours 


First Metal 


35.00 


35.00 


35.00 


Each Additional 


10.00 


10.00 


10.00 


Metal 








RCRA 8 Metals 


140.00 


185.00 




CAM 17 Metals 


230.00 


275.00 




(CA Title 22) 









Mercury by Cold Vapor A \ - Solids, Water, Air Filters 
Mercury Analysis 35.00 45.00 

Extraction and Analysis - Hazardous Waste Characterization* 

10 Davs 3-5 Davs 

TCLP (Single Metal) 75.00 75.00 

STLC (Single Metal) 75.00 75.00 

"Extraction preparation for STLC or TCLP on multiple metals: $75.00 per sample. 
For analysis, see total metals and mercury prices. 

5900 Hollis Street. Suite M 1785 -18th Street. Suite A 

Emeryville. California 94608 San Francisco, California 94107 

(510)653-0824 (510) 653-1361 Fax (415)522-5890 (415) 522-5892 Fax 



___ 



Micro Analytical Laboratories, Inc. 

i# 1998 Price Schedule 
Submitted To 
Geomatrix 

Effective 7/15/98 
Asbestos by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) 

Rush 





3-5 Davs 


24 Hours 


(Priority or Ovemijhr) 


AHERA Analysis 


75.00 


100.00 


125.00 


Yamate II (Modified) 


75.00 


100.00 


125.00 


NIOSH 7402 


100.00 
3-10 Davs 


125.00 


150.00 


Bulk/Dust (Qualitative) 


75.00 






Bulk (Semi-Quantitative) 


125.00 






Bulk (Weight %) 


250.00 






Microvacuum (Structures) 


175.00 






Drinking Water 


150.00 







Normal 


(Priority or Overnight) 


12.00 


15.00 


75.00 




50.00 





Asbestos by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) 

Rush 
Normal (Prions 

Bulk Sample (EPA Method) 

Point Count (400 Pts.) 

Matrix Reduction Prep. 

Additional layers on roofing samples: S5.00 each. 

Fiber Count by Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) 

Rush 

Normal (Priority or QvemighP 

Air Sample (NIOSH 7400 Method) 10.00 12.00 

Nuisance Dust Analysis (Total or Respirable) 

Rush 

Normal (Priority or Overnight) 

Filter Sample (NIOSH 500 or 600) 12.00 15.00 

5900 Hollis Street, Suite M 1786 - 18th Street. Suite A 

Emeryville. California 94608 San Francisco. California 94107 

(510)653-0824 (510) 653-1361 Fax (415)522-5890 (415) 522-5892 Fax 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA— HEALTH AND V/ElFARE AGENCY 



PETE WILSON. Co 



DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 

2151 BERKELEY WAY 
1ERKEIEY. CA 94704 101 I 

(510)540-2800 



September 20, 1996 



Franco P. Raviola Certificate No.: 2149 

Micro Analytical Laboratories, Inc. 
San Francisco Office 
5900 Hollis Street, Suite M 
Emeryville, CA 94608-0000 

Dear Mr. Raviola: 

This is to advise you that the laboratory named above has been certified as an environmental testing 
laboratory pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Laboratory Improvement Act 
of 1988 (Health and Safety Code, Division 1, Part 2, Chapter 7.5, commencing with Section 
100825). 

The fields of testing for which this laboratory has been certified under this Act are indicated in the 
enclosed "List of Approved Fields of Testing and Analytes." Certification shall remain in effect until 
September 30, 1998 unless revoked. This certificate is subject to an annual fee as prescribed by 
Section 100860(a), Health and Safety Code, on the anniversary date of the certificate. Your 
application for renewal must be received 90 days before the expiration of your certificate to remain 
in force according to the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 19, Sections 
64S01 through 64827. 

Please note that your laboratory is required to notify the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation 
Program of any major changes in the laboratory such as the transfer of ownership, change of 
laboratory director, change in location, or structural alterations which may affect adversely the 
quality of analyses (Section 100845(b), California Health & Safety Code). 

Your continued cooperation is essential in order to establish a reputation for the high quality of the 
data produced by environmental laboratories certified by the State of California. 

If you have additional questions, please contact Nelson Lan at (510) 540-2S00. 

Sincerely, 



^ C- /c^.6L~j 






George C. Kulasingam, Ph.D., Manager 
Environmental Laboratory 
Accreditation Program 



Enclosure 



CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 
| ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCREDITATION PROGRAM 

List of Approved Fields of Testing and Analytes 

Micro Analytical Laboratories, Inc. TELEPHONE No: (415) 522-5890 CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 2 149 

1786 - 1 8th Street, Suite A CALIFORNIA COUNTY: San Francisco EXPIRATION DATE: 9/30/98 

San Francisco. CA 94107-2343 



14 Bulk Asbestos Analysis 

14.1 1% or Greater Asbestos Concentrations (Title 22, CCR, 66261.24(a)(2)(A)) 

(092096) 



X 




CM 

£ ra 

9 CT 

D "- 

CJ CM 

U ° 

UJ ° 

hi ci 

O O 

V) I/) 



•S - o ^* 







ompliance wit 

be requiremen 

as suppliers c 

ccreditation fo 










u ~ c- < 






>* S ^ v -~ 






2 3.2 2 






^ E7q. 


. 




^ o £ P 


u 




2 <u £ 






.. rau-s 


c/T 




«5 '? O c 


2 
o 




Program 
hese cri 
(ANSI/A 
;, //sted 


H 






^ 


< 


at/o 

ons 
900 
srvi 


O 


u 


■§■5 O ^ 


CQ 


o 


<i 


(J 

c/o 






u 

2 


boratory A 
f Federal R 
rements o 
rded for sp 


u 


u. 


hH 


z 


H 

>< 


< 

en 


^ O 3 ra 


J 




f= O "- vr, 

2 o — •- 


< 




■-- CO > -s 


14 




O 




"75 n *- "O 


g 




.2 io-s y 


— * 




55"^ 



■8 ~° 

§•« 

~° is 

N IB 

c a» 

O -2 






O 2 



£ u o u 



C/3 

>H 

< 

Z 

PQ 

O 
H 

- 



\ 



C\ 



O 

m 



o 

JO 



00 



National. Institute 
Standards and Technology 



/IEC GUIDE 25:1990 
9002:1987 




Scope 



itation 



National Voluntary 

Laboratory Accreditation Program 







ed Scope 03/11/1998 

K ASBESTOS FIBER ANALYSIS 



Page: 1 of 1 
NVLAP LAB CODE 200054-0 



4P Code 

PI 



MICRO ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. 

1786- 18th Street, Suite A 

San Francisco, C A 94107-2343 

Mr. Frank Raviola 

Phone: 510-653-0824 Fax: 510-653-1361 



Designation 

U.S. EPA's "InterimMethod for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation 
Samples" as found in 40 CFR, Part 763, Subpart F, App. A, or the current U.S. EPA 
method for the analysis of asbestos in building material. 



September 30, 1998 




Effective through 



For the National Institute of Standards and Technology 




■If 

cj F 
u cj 

c ^ 

Cr 

Cj 



*- c 
^ o 

5.2 






u 

u 



O «N O 

u en u 

CJ Cj 

S ^> o 
'P ^? "o 

fN u 

<o O 'r- 

C O C 

_ O Cl o 

1j lo.y 

<-' CJ >*- CJ 

■< on o o. 



ra 



2 o 

~ CJ 

-O *-. 
ra O 

"^ c° 
.O rsi 

"5 £ 

ra *~ 

-§^ 
^ -f= 

cj ~3 
N 2 

C cj 
CO Zl 

o .5 

u ^ 

O CJ 



C v2 
CJ -~, 
C oj 
CJ tj 

Cr $ 

Cj <~z 



c c 
ra o 



-*><: 



^ CJ 

cj ^L 

."O <-i 

U o 

U c 

Uj p 

o I 

^1 -Q 



•S u O u 



CO 
)— < 
CO 
>< 

)— ( 
CO 

o 

H 

CO 
CO 

< 



\ 



CO 



o 

CO 



o 



cx 







-c 



a 
6 
o _ 

2 g.^ 

2 8 

c 

QJ 

nU-S 

c Cf r- 



03 



CM 



Q^ 



C3 U 

CO 

o 



QJ 



QJ "^ 



"O 



5 o 

Go- 



2 aj 

l - CL) 

o u: 

^a O 

■ — co 



^ -Si 



t CJ 



o 

u 
u 






CJ -j 



T3 

.CJ. 

2 u c 





to 



•2 u o 



GO 
>— ( 
GO 
>H 

< 

pq 
>— ( 

co 
O 
H 

co 

co 
«! 

^} 
P 



\ 



CO 

On 



O 









~m~-mr^~arrr-TnrjM l v » [M .n namt^r. . ._.. ,■!,■!■ umiu^M 'itrn-n. 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 



ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY CERTIFICATION 

is hereby granted to 
MICRO ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. 

-r- 

5900 HOLLIS STREET, SUITE M 
l 1ERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA 



to conduct analyses of environmental samples as specified in the 

"List of Approved Fields of Testing and Analytes" 

which accompanies this Certificate. 



This Certificate is granted in accordance with provisions of Section 1010, et seq. 
(New Section 100325) of the Health and Safety Code. 

Certificate No.: 1037 



Expiration Date: 10/31/1999 



Issued on: 



10/01/1997 



f^-p C- ^-^-T 



at Berkeley. California, 

subject to forfeiture or revocation. 



George C. Kulaslngaxn. Ph.D. 
Manager 

Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program 



ALIFORNIA— HEALTH AND WELFARE AGEr-- PETE WILSON, Gover 



MENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 

EY WAY tij 

V 94704-1011 

(510)540-2800 ^arch 16> 1998 




FRANK RAVIOLA Certificate No.: 1037 

MICRO ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. 
5900 HOLLIS STREET, SUITE M 
EMERYVILLE, CA 94608- 

Dear FRANK RAVIOLA: 

This is to advise you that the laboratory named above has been certified as an environmental 
testing laboratory pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Laboratory 
Improvement Act of 1988 (Health and Safety Code, Division 1, Part 2, Chapter 7.5, commencing 
with SectiorrT00825). 

The Fields of Testing for which this laboratory has been certified under this Act are indicated in the 
enclosed "List of Approved Fields of Testing and Analytes." Certification shall remain in effect 
until October 31, 1999 unless revoked. This certificate is subject to an annual fee as 
prescribed by Section 100860(a), Health and Safety Code, on October 31, 1998. 
Your application for renewal must be received 90 days before the expiration of your certificate to 
remain in force according to the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 19, 
Section 64801 Through 64827. 

Please note that your laboratory is required to notify the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation 
Program of any major changes in the laboratory such as the transfer of ownership, change of 
laboratory director, change in location, or structural alterations which may affect adversely the 
quality of analyses (Section 100845(b) and (d), California Health and Safety Code). 

Your continued cooperation is essential in order to establish a reputation for the high quality of 
the data produced by environmental laboratories certified by the State of California. 

If you have any questions, please contact Nelson Lan at (510) 540-2800. 

Sincerely, 



^^vp C - 



fc 







George C. Kulasingam, Ph.D., Manager 
Environmental Laboratory 
Accreditation Program 



Enclosure 



ran. 



CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEAJLTH SERVICES 
ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ACCREDITATION PROGRAM 

List of Approved Fields of Testing and Analytes 



MICRO ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC 
5900 HOLLIS STREET, SUITE M 
EMERYVILLE, CA 



PHONE No. (510)653-0824 
COUNTY ALAMEDA 



Certificate No. 1037 
Expiration Date 10/31/1999 



03 Analysis of Toxic Chemical Elements in Drinking Water 



10 



11 



14 



17 



03.01 


Arsenic 


03.02 


Barium 


03.03 


Cadmium 


03.04 


Chromium, total 


03.05 


Copper 


03.06 


Iron 


03.07 


Lead 


03.08 


Manganese 


03.09 


Mercury 


03.10 


Selenium 


03.11 


Silver 


03.12 


-Zinc 


03. 13- 


Aluminum 


03.14 


Asbestos 


03.15 


Antimony 


03.16 


Beryllium 


03.17 


Nickel 


Inorganic Chemistry and Toxic Chemical Elements of Hazardous Waste 


10.01 


Antimony 


10.02 


Arsenic 


10.03 


Barium 


10.04 


Beryllium 


10.05 


Cadmium 


10.06 


Chromium, total 


10.07 


Cobalt 


10.03 


Copper 


10.09 


Lead 


10.10 


Mercury 


10.11 


Molybdenum 


10.12 


Nickel 


10.13 


Selenium 


10.14 


Silver 


10.15 


Thallium 


10.16 


Vanadium 


10.17 


Zinc 


Extraction Tests of Hazardous Waste 


11.01 


California Waste Extraction Test (WET) 


11.04 


Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Inorganics Only 


Bulk Asbestos Analysis 


14.01 


Bulk Asbestos, 1% or greater Concentrations 


Toxic 


Chemical Elements in Wastewater 



As of 03/16/1993, this list supersedes a!l previous Cs!s for this certificate number. 



Pa;e 1 of 2 



17.02 


Antirr.ony 


17.03 


Arsenic 


17.04 


Barium 


17.05 


Beryllium 


17.06 


Cadmium 


17.08 


Chromium, total 


17.09 


Cobalt 


17.10 


Copper 


17.13 


Iron 


17.14 


Lead 


17.15 


Manganese 


17.16 


Mercury 


17.17 


Molybdenum 


17.18 


Nickel 


17.24 


Selenium 


17.25 


Silver 


17.27 


Thallium 


17.28 


Tin 


17.29* 


Titanium 


17.30 


Vanadium 


17.31 


Zinc 


17.32 


Asbestos 






Certificate No. 1037 
Expiration Date 10/3 l/i 999 



I 



^""■""^^ 



^jj| TheAmeric^ 

fX Industrial Hygiene 
;<fg Association 






Ih 



iMf 



i?. 



is proud to acknowledge (hat 

Micro Analytical Laboratories In 

Emeryville, CA 

Laboratory IDA: 1 1150 



''• : ^S- " has'fulfilled the requirement* f n » r j 
/¥: iiiiSv d, s im gu ,shed recognition a, an 

AIHA IH Accredited Laboratory 

Orfe/natf, Accredited December , , 993t ^ '. ■ " " ^ I <1 L U J > 

OnUnu&comphance with AIHA accreditation criter 






MM 




criteria 




J r2— 



O^ President, American Industrial Hygiene As: 



fa (ion 






72—^ j: 







'S^0t\ DonaId J - Hart, Ph.D., CIH 
^Sili C/ ' a ' V ' Anal y tical Accreditation Board 



- MSS 










■^Jy&Jkj 



September 20. 1996 
Preparation Date 



504 

Certificate Number 







m. 












'i^^JvSi)i Colleen Becker, CIH 

l;M Chair, IH Laboratory Accreditation Conuni 







m* 



■ 



r- E?, 





5: ^ 






2 ~ 






| 1 ' S 












5 t-> ~~- *Zj 






-< rj t-, i: 






sr Q rs c? 






■1 ■ * 3 ^ 






►-( 




c C c: i 






:s js o _ 






a 5 o •-. 






rcco 
raloi 
Paii, 
lysis. 




cv 


^ ^^ "^ 


o" 


} \ 


^ =5 ^ ?• 


< 


t 


• C n ^ 




jt. 


5 R o S 






i Q -3 =i. 


en 


>^ 


B" « * 5- 


3 

13 


& 




n' 
o 


h 


as nit 
ogran 
n Act 
' inclu 


5' 


< 






V 


CO 


V 


5 Si fc. " 


O 




he rcqu 
fished u 

2 and in 
part of 


a 

c 

CO 




^ •"> ~ v 


> 




^ *^ r> < 






^ Q" "^ ri 






S'' ^il 






P-'ti 5? £• 






- C S~ o 






r=» 1 • v. § 












| ^ « 




r5^ 


s ^" 








> 

O 
O 



>— < 

H 
> 

o 



H 
O 



5. 5 



t-« 



o 
> 



« ST 


cr 






9 -^ 


o 


r=i 




--: ^ 


•~j 


n 


^ 


o ^ 


21 






II 


O 


C3 


n 


5 - o 






t ' 


°2 S 


o 


o 


S3 


5- 5 


■ft: 


" 


n 




►-* 


o 




cs. b i- 


>-H 


> 


u 






c 




<5> 




ra' 


^ t> 






01 


5.- Q 
?■§■ 






>— < 



3 





APPENDIX C 
CONTRACTOR'S AND CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEES' INTERESTS IN OTHER CITY CONTRACTS 

24th and Utah - Controller's Certification ENCN98000002 -01 












File No. 000173 Committee Item No. 6_ 

Board Item No. 



COMMITTEE/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST* 



Committee 


i Finance and Labor Date 2/9/00 


Board of Supervisors Meeting Date 


Cmte Board 


□ 


D 


Motion 


£] 


D 


Resolution 


□ 


D 


Ordinance 


□ 


□ 


Legislative Digest 


H 


□ 


Budget Analyst Report 


□ 


□ 


Legislative Analyst Report 


s 


□ 


Department/Agency Cover Letter and/or Report 


n 


□ 


Public Correspondence 


□ 


□ 


Exceeds 20 pages; see file to review 


□ 


□ 


Sent to Board in advance of agenda preparation; 
available for review at reception desk, City Hall, Room 244 


□ 


□ 


Other 


n 


n 




n 


n 

n 




n 




n 


n 





(Use back side if additional space is needed) 

Late Agenda Items (documents received too late for distribution to the 
Committee Members) 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

Completed by: Gail Johnson Date 2/7/00 

Date 



"This list reflects the explanatory documents provided 



Packet Contents Checklist 2/3/00 



Cmte Board 



□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

D 

D 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

D 

□ 

□ 



□ 

□ 

□ 

D 

□ 

D 

D 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 






Packet Contents Checklist 



2/3'00 



FILE NO 000173 RESOLUTION NO. 



1 AUTHORIZING THE AIRPORT COMMISSION TO ACCEPT AND EXPEND A GRANT 

2 J IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 1 1 6,000 FROM THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY 
3 



10 
11 



MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (AIR DISTRICT) FOR ACQUISITION OF LIGHT DUTY 
COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) VEHICLES 



4 
5 

6 

WHEREAS, The Airport seeks to reduce vehicle emissions in the region and on 

g I terminal roadways; and 

9 I WHEREAS, The Air District assists public agencies in implementing emissions 

reduction projects, such as the addition of CNG vehicles to fleets; and 

WHEREAS, The Airport Commission, in Resolution 99-0212, approved an 
application to seek, accept, and expend funds for this project; and 

WHEREAS, The Airport would administer this grant, disburse incentive funds to 
permitted third party passenger carriers, and provide the Air District with information 
concerning the new vehicles; and 

WHEREAS. The Airport would have no ownership interest in third party CNG 
vehicles; and 

WHEREAS. Airport funds used for the base cost of Airport-owned automobiles are 
contained in the approved Airport budget for this purpose, with the full additional cost o\' 
CNG automobiles paid by the Air District; and 

WHI-RF.AS. This demonstration project would continue this Airport's reputation as a 
regional leader in promoting clean fuel use among ground transportation providers; now. 
therefore, be it 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



RESOLVED, That, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative ( ode §10.170-1, the 
Board of Supervisors does hereby authorize the Airport Commission to accept and expend 
funds awarded in this grant: and be it 

FURTHER RESOl VI I). Chat the Board of Supervisors does hereb) waive indirect 
costs; and. he it 

FURTHI K RJ S< )l \ I I). I hat although theCit) has incurred no legal obligation, the 
Board of Supervisors does herebj ratif) the action previousl) taken. 



Ree 




mewue 



ded: 



Department 1 lead 



Approved 




Approved: , • / ' / . 

" " 7 — ^ fc 

Controller, ( irant Div imoii 



BOARD Of SUPERVISORS 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 6 - File 00-0173 

Department: 

Item: 



4 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Grant Period: 
Description: 



♦ 



Airport 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept 
and expend a grant in the amount of $116,000 from the Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for 
acquisition of light duty Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 
vehicles. Light duty vehicles include automobiles and vans 
which have a gross vehicle weight of less than 10,000 lbs. 

$116,000 

Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA), Vehicle 
Incentive Program (VIP) administered by the Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District (BAAQMD). TFCA is funded 
by a portion of Bay Area vehicle registration fees. 

November 1999 - April 2000 

The Airport CNG Vehicle Project -- Light Duty Vehicles is a 
demonstration project to encourage companies that 
transport persons to and from the Airport and for the 
Airport Commission itself to replace a portion of their light 
duty gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles with clean 
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles. The project 
would provide funds to companies providing transportation 
operating at the Airport to subsidize the incremental cost of 
16 CNG vehicles over gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. 
Additionally, it would allow the Airport Commission to 
substitute five clean burning CNG automobiles for five 
gasoline powered automobiles for which funds were 
previously budgeted. 

The grant would provide a subsidy to two private 
companies for the purchase of 16 light-duty CNG vans. 
Additionally, the grant would provide additional funds for 
the Airport to acquire five CNG automobiles to replace five 
gasoline powered automobiles. The funds provided by the 
BAAQMD would cover the approximate difference in the 
cost between gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles and the 
CNG vehicles. This grant would allow the participating 
companies to purchase an estimated 16 CNG vehicles at 
regular gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicle prices, and the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



Airport Commission to purchase five CNG automobiles at 
gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicle prices. The two private 
companies and the Airport would supplement the grant 
funds they receive in order to cover the entire cost of the 
new CNG vehicles. 

This grant would provide approximately 22.1 percent, or 
$96,000, of the total cost of the estimated 16 CNG vans to 
be purchased by SuperShuttle and Inn at Oyster Point; it 
would also provide 20.2 percent, or $20,000, of the total cost 
of the five CNG automobiles to be purchased by the Airport. 
The grant recipients would provide the balance: 77.9 
percent, or $338,809, from two private companies of the 
total cost of $434,809 for the 16 CNG vans, and 79.8 
percent, or $79,190, from the Airport of the total cost of 
$99,190 for the five CNG automobiles to be acquired by the 
Airport. As shown in Attachment I provided by the Airport, 
the total project cost is $533,999, including $116,000 in the 
subject grant funds. 

Of the remaining estimated cost of $417,999, $338,809 is to 
be provided by SuperShuttle and Inn at Oyster Point and 
$79,190 is to be provided by the Airport. 



Budget: 



Estimated Grant Fund Allocation for the Acquisition 
of 21 CNG vehicles 

(Subsidies are based on the approximate 
incremental increased cost of a CNG fueled vehicle 
compared to a conventional fueled vehicle - See 
Attachment for details) 


Per CNG Car 
(Airport Acquisition) 


$4,000 x 5 vehicles 


$20,000 


Per CNG Van 
(Private Company 
Acquisition) 


$6,000 x 16 vehicles 


$96,000 


Total Grant Funds: $116,000 

! 1 



Mr. Roger Hooson of the Airport advises that all costs 
under this grant are capital costs, and 100 percent of the 
funds would be used in each case toward the purchase of 
the CNG fueled vehicles. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



Airport Funds 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



$79,190 to be provided from the Airport's FY 1999-2000 
budget. 

Indirect costs would be waived in order to apply all grant 
funds to direct program costs. 

1. This grant is similar to three prior grants previously 
approved by the Board of Supervisors for acquisition of 
CNG vehicles. It differs only in that (a) the Vehicle 
Incentive Program administered by the Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District specifically targets light duty 
vehicles, and (b) uie Airport itself is purchasing five 
vehicles for its own use in addition to obtaining grant funds 
to subsidize one privately operated transportation company 
and one hotel in acquiring CNG vehicles. 

2. The two participating private companies, SuperShuttle 
and Inn at Oyster Point, have provided the Airport with 
letters of intent to participate in the demonstiation project, 
and with purchase orders for specific CNG vans. 
SuperShuttle will acquire 15 vans, and the Inn at Oyster 
Point will acquire one van. The Airport would administer 
the grant, disburse the grant funds to participating hotels 
and transportation companies, and monitor the project. 

3. According to Mr. Hooson, an important component of this 
demonstration project is the CNG fueling station at the 
Airport's Ground Transportation Staging Area located near 
the U.S. 101 Millbrae Avenue interchange. The Airport 
awarded a lease to a private firm, Trillium USA, to build 
and operate the CNG fueling station facility. This fueling 
station became operational in June of 1999 and is 
accessible to any of the Airport's contracted and permitted 
companies that provide transportation to and from the 
Airport. These services include door-to-door vans, scheduled 
vehicles, taxis and the Caltrain-SFO Shuttle. Under the 
terms of its lease with the Airport, Trillium USA pays to 
the Airport three percent of its gross revenues, or a 
minimum of $569 monthly ($6828 annually), whichever is 
greater. 

4. Attachment II is a copy of the Grant Information Form. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



5. The Airport has prepared a Disability Access Checklist, 
which is on file with the Clerk of the Board's Office. 



Recommendations: Approve the proposed resolution. 



. 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 






— JO 
7 9 



H > = = 



te 



(N 


03 




jj_ 


3 


V 




00 


> 

3 


> 

ON 


00 


Os 


z 




J~" 


D 






u. 




r 


f- 




< 


2 


— 


OS 

o 


£ 


□ 




C3 


— "5 






3 > 


Si 


a 




7C 

O 


</i 


5 




ra 


at! 


r- 

b 


t/> 


< 


a 
2 

r— 
Vj 


^t 










Q 


-= 




a 







L0 


2 




00 






O 


~5 




O 


> 



— — Vll 



— ul 



< >. 

a: c 



t- — 



^ s > 



■2. u 

IS 

-3=) 
> V. 

u 



** < 



- e 



5 H O 



35 O 



U e 






u 


-c u. 








c _ 








ec C 


< 




a 


. <0 




U 


a 




P 


o 




O *o 


r- 


z. 


• 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 
FHe Number (provided by Clerk of Board of Supervisors): 

Grant Information Form. Revised 11/30/99 

Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a Department to accept & expend 
grant funds 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying resolution: 

1 . Grant Title: VIP I btichcr 23 - ( "AG" I 'chicles 

2. Department: Airport Commission 

?. Contact Person: Roger Hooson Telephone: (650) '94-651 1 

4. ( irant Approval Status (check one): 

[.v] Appro\'ed by funding agency [ ] Not yet approved 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved or Applied for: SI 16.0(H) 

6a. Matching Funds Required: None i Airport tunas used only for the base cost of Airport-owned vehiclt 

i\ Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): 

7a. Grant Source Agency: Dux- Area Air Quality Management District 

b. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): | 

8. Proposed Grant Project Summary: San Francisco International Airport door-to-door van and hotel shuttle 
operators will acquire 16 compressed natural gas (CNG) x-ans in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
SL'LEl ' emissions category, and the Airport Commission will acquire 5 CNG autos in CARB's ULEV emissions 
category. 

'>. Grant Project Schedule, as allowed in approval documents, or as proposed: 

Start-Date: U/99 End-Date: 4/00 

10. Number of new positions created and funded: None 

11. If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employees once the grant ends'? 

X A 

1 2a. Amount budgeted for contractual services: Xonc 
. b. Will contractual sen-ices be put out to bid° .V A 

c. If so. will contract services help to further the goals of the department's MBE WT3E 

requirements A' A 

d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out° H A 



39 



Attachment I I 
Page 1 of 2 — 

ii. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out \"A 

|.i. Does the budget include indirect costs? [ ] Yes [x] No 

hi . If yes. how much? S 

h2. How was the amount calculated? 

c. If" no. why are indirect costs not included 

[ ] Not allowed by granting agency [.v] To maximize use of grant funds on direct sen-ices 

[ ] Other (please explain): 

I. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: 

Disability Access Checklist*** 

i. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 

| Existing Site(s) [ ] Existing Structure(s) [x] Existing Program(s)or Service(s) 

Rehabilitated Site(s) f ] Rehabilitated Structure(s) [ ] New Program(s) or Serviceis) 

New Site(s) [ ] New Structure(s) 

i. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability have reviewed the proposal 
J concluded that the project as proposed will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
Ruber Federal. State and local accessHaws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons with 
Eibililies. or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in the comments section: 

Mnments: 



jparimental or Mayor's Office of Disabilitv Contact: Ron Fong Date Reviewed: 1/ JO/00 

■parimem Approval: isotA *-c^\ ( (\.^7^..y\ AfV\ C~z.(^A^s-.A& >~\ 

(Name) ) ) (Title) 




(Signature) 



• 



40 



ili; 



' 



• 




H<- 



San Francisco International Airport 



GOJ' 



January 1 9, 2000 



P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco. CA 94128 

Tel 650.794.5000 

Fax 650. 794.5005 

www.flysfo.com 



AIRPORT 

COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WILLIE L. BROWN. JR. 
MAYOR 



► 



HENRY E BERMAN 



PRESIDENT 



LARRY MAZZOLA 
VICE PRESIDENT 



MICHAEL S STRUNSKY 



LINDA S CRAYTON 



JOHN L. MARTIN 
AIRPORT DIRECTOR 



Ms. Gloria Young 

Clerk of the Board 

City and County of San Francisco 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 

San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 

Dear Ms. Young: 

Attached please find one original and four copies of a proposed 
resolution forwarded by the Airport Commission. 

This proposed resolution would authorize the Airport Commission to 
accept and expend a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District (Air District) in the amount of $ 1 1 6,000 to acquire Compressed 
Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles. 

These grants should be assigned by the Board on January 31, 2000 and 
heard by Finance Committee on February 9, in order to avoid payment 
delays to third parties. 

If you have any questions, please call Roger Hooson at (650) 794-65 1 1 . 



Very truly yours, 




John \J. Martin 
Airport Director 



Attachments 



File Number (provided h> clerk of Board ol Supervisors): 



relephone: (650) 94-6511 



Grant Information Form, Revised 11/30/99 

Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supen isors resolutions authorizing a Department to accept &. e\pei 
grant funds 

The following describes the granl referred to in the accompanying resolution: 

1 . ( rranl Title: / IP I oucher 23 - ( \( < I chicles 

2. Department: Airport Commission 

3. Contact Person. Roger Hooson 

4. Grant Approval Status (check one): 

|.v| Approved bj funding agenc) pproved 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved n 

6a. Matching Funds Required: Vone of Airport-owned vehicles) 

b. Source(s) o\ matching funds i if applicable |: 

7a. Grant Source Agency: Bay Area Air Quality Management 
b. Grant Pass-Through Vgency (if applicable): 

X. Proposed Cirant Project Summarj : San Francisco International Airport door-to-door van ami hold shuttle 
operators m /// acquire M compressed natural gas << At }) van** in the ( 'alifomia Air Resources Hoard n iRlh 
SI LI' I 'emissions category, and i he Airport ( 'ommission will acquire 5 ( AC autos in ( 'ARli\ I I EV emis 
category. 

9. Grant Project Schedule, as allowed in approval documents, or as proposed: 

Start-Date: // 99 End-Date: 4 00 

10. Number ot' new positions created and funded: \ 

1 I . If new positions arc created, explain the disposition of employees once the grant ends.' 
V I 

12a. Amount budgeted for contractual services: None 

. b. Will contractual sen ices be put out to bid'.' A I 

c. If so. will contract services help to further the goals of the department's \1M1 \\ HI 

requirements? A i 

d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? ,\ I 



d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? N/A 
p3a. Does the budget include indirect costs? [ ] Yes [x] No 



bl . If yes. how much? S 

b2. How was the amount calculated? 



c. If no. why are indirect costs not included? 
[ ] Not allowed by granting agency 
[ ] Other (please explain): 



[x] To maximize use of grant funds on direct services 
14. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: 



* * Disability Access Checklist 



This Grant is intended tor activities at (check all that apply): 



v| Existing Site(s) 
| Rehabilitated Site) si 
| New Site(s) 



] Existing Structure) s) 
[ ] Rehabilitated Structure) s) 

| New Structure! si 



[jc] Existing Program(s) or Service(s) 
J New Program) s) or Service(s) 



16. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and or the Mayor's Office on Disability have reviewed the proposal 
jiid concluded that the project as proposed will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
ll other Federal. State and local acksess laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons with 
disabilities, or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in the comments section: 



omments: 



Departmental or Mayor's ( M'fice of Disability Contact: Ron Fong 
Department Approval 



Date Reviewed: / 10 Dl) 



(Name) | 



V (Title) 




GRANT BUDGET 
Please see Page 1 of the attached yrant application 



ivHnttMfidSKfK? 



"July^19g9« 



Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP) Application 



Use this form to request incentives for alternative fuel (natural gas, propane, electric, or hybrid electric) 
passenger cars, pick-up trucks, and vans with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or less. If you have 
questions, contact David Burch at 415-749-4641 or via e-mail at dburch@baaqmd.gov. 

Public Agency Name: San Francisco International Airport 

Contact Person: Roger Hooson, Senior Transportation Planner, Landside Operations 

Phone: (650) 794-6511; Fax.- (650) 794-6508; E-mail: roger_hooson@ci.sf.ca.us 

Mailing Address: San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, CA 94128 

1. Clean Air Vehicles: Total VIP Incentive $$ Requested: $120,000 

Specify the number and type of clean air vehicle(s) for which you request VIP incentives: 



Emission Category 
(ULEV.SULEV.ZEV) 


Fuel Type 


Vehicle Make & Model 


Purchase 
or Lease 


#of 
Vehicles 


VIP $ per 

Vehicle 


TotalS 


SULEV 


CNG 


Ford Econonne E350 Van 


Purchase 


18 


$6K 


$108K 


SULEV 


CNG 


Dodge Van 


Purchase 


2 


$6K 


S12K 

















Ifote: The above request is supported by letters of intent from commercial vehicle operators which 
are attached. Super Shuttle is requesting 16 Ford vans, San Francisco City Shuttle 2 Dodge vans, 
Comfort Inn 1 Dodge van, and Inn at Oyster Point 1 Ford van. Most hotels will be operating CNG 
minibuses, application for which was made through the standard TFCA process. 

2. Identify source of matching funds: 

Commercial Door-to-Door Van and Hotel Courtesy Shuttle Operators (Entire Balance of Vehicle Cost) 

3. Describe how vehicles will be used and anticipated daily and annual mileage per vehicle: 

Door-to-Door Vans: Transport passengers to and from SFO. Daily mileage per vehicle 233; Annual 
mileage 85,000 

Hotel Courtesy Shuttles: Transport passengers to and from SFO. Daily mileage per vehicle 137; 
Annual mileage 50,000 (based on consolidated shuttle operation) 

4. Describe access to refueling/ recharging infrastructure for the clean air vehicles: 

The Airport developed a new fast fill, two-hose Trillium CNG fueling station at the Ground 
Transportation Staging Area. The station is expandable to four hoses. 



* 



• r...lWBBH^ 



.■ajfliVJV* n 



July7.1999 sr 



5. Provide inventory of existing vehicles: Indicate the number of passenger cars, pick-up fc 

trucks, and vans in your existing vehicle fleet of with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds 
or less: 



Total # Vehicles 


» CNG Vehicles 


n Electric Vehicles 


Other 


(10,000 lbs. or less) 


(dedicated or bi-fueh 


(including hybrid electric) 


(specify fuel type) 


Door-to-Door Vans: 


Door-to-Door Vans: 16 


Door-to-Door Vans and Hotel 


Door-to-Door Vans: 


347 vehicles 


vehicles 


Courtesy Shuttles: 


331 gasoline 


Hotel Courtesy 


Hotel Courtesy Shuttles: 


None 


Hotel Courtesy 


Shuttles: 35 vehicles 


1 vehicle 




Shuttles: 34 gasoline 


(under 10.000 lbs.) 









Project sponsor hereby certifies that no TFCA County Program Manager funds have been requested 
or received for the vehicles descnbed in #1 above 



Signature (Fleet Manager or equivalent) 
Attachments (4) 



Title 






/Hj^tA 






7/3 Q/9 9 
Date 



Mail this form to: David Burch, BAAQMD. 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 



,V\ 



A ADMIN (PHI) 7.30*99 1 1 : 1 3/ST. *• 1 2/NO. 4360539 i 42 P 1 

, -»ai«o.o f-531 ? 01/01 f-4| D 



July 23. 1999 



Roger Hooson 

Landside Operations 

San Francisco International Airport 

P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco. CA 94128 



Dear Roger 

l would like to thank you for tne opportunity to be part of the grand opening 
yesterday and say it was a pleasure to meet with you. The event was weil 
organized and SuperShuttte appreciates the representation received. 

The airport and the Air District have put together a great program, and I feei the 
CNG project will be a great success. 

SuperShume intends to purchase sixteen (16) additional CNG vehicles in the up 
and coming year and we hope to be included in any additional funding provided 
by the San Francisco international airport and Air District. 

Cordially, 



/a 

Eric S. Butter 
General Manager 

Cc David Bird, VP Operations 



Attachment z 



Sample Cover Letter 



Roger Hooson 

Senior Transportation Planner 

Landside Operations 

San Francisco International Airport 

P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco, CA 94128 

Dear Mr. Hooson: 

I have read the attached Permit Addendum, and am interested in purchasing Compressed 
Natural Gas (CNG)-powered vans throuen the Bav Area Air Quahrv Management 
District's (Air District) new Vehicle Incentive Proeram I VTP) for vehicles of 10.000 lbs 
GV\V or less. Between July 1, 1999 ana Juiv 14. 1999. 1 pledec to purcnase Q 
CNG-powered vehicles as indicated below ' — ^ — 



Quantity 



Make 

Do4c}£/fot D 



Modci 

WW 



Psyr. Seats 



This is a firm commitment on my pan. 



Sincerely, 





i Ry^KCi^^cc izJiT 



C't- 9? 






^hjdi^ 



» 



— • 041915P.rhl 




San Francisco International Airport 



gia 
ant 

Siruntiv 

ivton 



3 ATIWAY TO THI PtORC 



July 23, 1999 



Mr. "Cisco" Zavaleta, President 
San Francisco VTP Coach Tours, 
dba San Francisco City Shuttle 
360 Alcott Road 
San Bruno. CA 94066 

Dear Mr. Zavaieta: 

Attached for your files is a fully executed original of the Second Addendum to your 
Airport Operating Permit 3072. The second original has been filed with the Airport's 
Ground Transportation Permit Processing Unit 

Thank you for your participation in the Airport Clean Fuel Vehicle Project. If you 
have questions, I can be reached at (650) 794-65 1 1 . 

Sincerely, 

Original Signed by 

Roger Hooson 

Senior Transportation Planner 

Landside Operations 

Attachment 



RH/mai 

bcc: DBriscoe 

Chron 



E Leung 
File3D48/l5P(vwa) 



ASgourajus RHooson<w/a) DBermudez 

07223 D48.rhl 



ATTACH Me± J~ ± 



Comfort 
Inn 



Airport West 

1390 El Camino Real 

Millbrae. CA 94030 

Phone:(650)952-3200 

Fax:(650)952-0474 



April 20. 1999 

Roger Hooson 

Senior Transportation Planner 

Lanriside Operanons 

San Francisco Intemanonal Airport 

P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco, CA 94128 

Dear Mr. Hooson: 

I have read the attached Draft Permit Addendum, and am interested in purchasing Compressed 
Natural Gas (CNG)-powered vehicle through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's 
(Air District) incentive funding program. Between October 15, 1999 and October 14. 2000, 1 
intend to purchase one CNG vehicle as indicated below: 



Quanntv 

1 



Make 



Model 



Dodge - Chrysler Unknown 



Psgr. Seats 

10 psgr. With space for baggage 



Should circumstances change, my business will notify the Airport promptly. 



Sincerely, 




Mohamed Virji 
General Manager 



/2E- 



V 



ATTACUM€lJT 4 



Tjfin at O yster Point Consolid ation Plans 



Introduction: 



fA^U rJl (ttv lll-l £12 



♦ We contacted several of the potential courtesy shuttle providers on the list 
provided; Ann Vega of Super Shuttle, John Spivack of SFO Airporter and Bill 
Schweitzer of Yellow Cab of San Mateo. We also attempted to exchange information 
& ideas with several of the properties in close proximity to us; the Embassy Suites 
and Comfort Suites. We also tried to establish how many times a month w enow ^ 

j3gvej_tj_and jrom SFO .)We received an estimate of cost from S&C Ford for 1 CNG~~J 
vehicle, a 1999 For d E350 XLT. j 

Information QbjaJMdj 

♦ While the cost of using Super Shuttle would work for our limited budget, it would 
not be able to provide the convenient service for our guests that we can now provide. 
Our guests would have to have a scheduled pick-up from our property at least one 
hour prior to the rime they wish to be at the airport to allow for other pick-ups along 
the way. Since our p r op er t y is located only 15 minutes from the airport and often 
guests choose sp stay here because of that reason using Super Shuttle as a service to 
transport our gnests to SFO is not a viable option for us. 

♦John Sprvak* of SFO Airporter was not able to give me any solid information 
regarding costs or services at this time because that was dependent on the number of 
properties who would use SFO Ariponer as their property's courtesy shuttle provider 
and what the different properties needs were. He was merely information gathering 
at this rime. 

♦ Bill Schweitzer of Yellow Cab of Buriingame was to fax out some information with 
a rough estimate of cost and services but has not done so as of yet. 

♦ Based on researching several months invoices for AVI-GTU GROUND 
TRANSPORTATION our average trips to the airport are "30" a month! 

A 1/3 consolidation seems rather difficult when we may go only 1 or 2 rimes in a day. 



♦ We plan to purchase a new CNG vehicle sometime before the end of the year. | 

♦ The other properties we tried to contact had not yet decided what they were going 
to do and were still trying to gather information. 

Summary 

We will make f ie ry effort to comply with the shuttle consolidation. At this time we 
need more information from potential providers and from the properties around us in 
order to come up with a service that will provide our guests with the service and 
convenience they expect, one that meets our budget and the consolidation mandate 
of the airport commission. 

Please note that we are a M 30" room hotel with very limited airport transportation 
usage. Our current vehicle seats onry "4" people including the driver and we always 
schedule van runs to insure no unnecessary runs axe made. 



fT% BAY AREA AIR QUALITY J 
LJ MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 1 



November 30, 1999 RECEIVED 

ijWDSIDE OPERATIONS 
Roger Hooson gg 

Sr. Transportation Planner UCU i w*" 

Landside Operations 
San Francisco International Airport 
P O. Box 8097 
San Francisco, C A 94128 



RE: Clean Air Vehicle Incentives: Confirmation of VTP Voucher n 23 

Dear Roger Hooson: 

The Air District recently approved an incentive voucher in the amount of SI 20.000 to help 
your agency acquire 20 SULEV compressed natural gas vehicles through the Air District's 
Vehicle Incentive Program (VTP) The incentive was contingent upon your submittal of a 
lease order by the voucher confirmation date of November 8, 1999 

We have received the purchase orders that you submitted for a total of 16 SULEV vehicles 
and five ULEV vehicles. Based on the VTP incentive levels of S6.000 per SULEV vehicle and 
S4,000 per ULEV vehicle, this represents total incentive funding of SI 16.000 This letter 
serves to confirm your incentive voucher in the amount of SI 16,000 The Air District will 
reserve the incentive funds pending delivery of the vehicles. 

The enclosed VTP Payment Request Form should be submitted to the Air District after you 
have taken delivery of all the vehicles that were approved for the VTP incentive 

Please note that failure to take delivery of the vehicles within 120 days of the date of this letter 
will result in a review, and potential revocation, of this grant Additional time to take delivery 
of vehicles will be granted when appropriate. 

If you have any questions, please contact David Burch at (415) 749-4641 

Sincerely; 



. 



(StMS&J 




Edward Mmer 

Supervisor 

Transportation Fund for Clean Air 

Enclosure 
File. g\VTP\confirm 
919 FT I IS 9TRFFT • <s AN FR A\TKrn C X I IFOR Ml A 94 1 D9 • I 41 S^ "49-^000 • FAX (4 1 5) 928-8560 



File No. 000073 Committee Item No. 

Board Item No. 



COMMITTEE/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST* 

Committee Finance and Labor Date 2/9/00 

Board of Supervisors Meeting Date 



Cmte Board 

□ □ Motion 

ffl □ Resolution 
□ Ordinance 

□ □ Legislative Digest 

gl □ Budget Analyst Report 

□ □ Legislative Analyst Report 

gQ □ Department/Agency Cover Letter and/or Report 

□ □ Public Correspondence 

□ □ Exceeds 20 pages; see file to review 

□ □ Sent to Board in advance of agenda preparation; 

available for review at reception desk, City Hall, Room 244 

□ □ Other 

□ □ 

D □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

(Use back side if additional space is needed) 

Late Agenda Items (documents received too late for distribution to the 
Committee Members) 

□ □ 

□ D 

□ □ : 

□ □ 

Completed by: Gail Johnson Date 2/7/00 

Date 



'This list reflects the explanatory documents provided 



Packet Contents Checklist 2/3/00 



Cmte Board 

□ □ _ 

□ □ — 

□ □ _ 

□ □ _ 

□ □ — 

□ □ _ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

an 

□ □ 

a a 

an 

an 

an 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

an 

an 

□ a 

an 

□ □ 

an 

an 

an 

an 

an 

n a 

an 

an 

an 

an 



Packet Contents Checklist 



FILE NO. 000073 RESOLUTION NO. 

i 
[Lease of Real Property] 



APPROVING COMMERCIAL LEASE FOR SPACE NOS. 6 & 7 AT THE MOSCONE 
CENTER GARAGE. 

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 254-86 authorized the Director of Property to arrange 
for direct leases of the commercial space at the Moscone Center Garage on a non- 
competitive bid basis while talcing into account the tenant mix and proposed rent; and, 

WHEREAS, The Parking Authority Commission authorized the Director of 
Property to solicit Requestssfpr Proposals for the subject vacant commercial space by 
adopting Resolution No. 116-99-PA on June 1, 1999; and, 

WHEREAS, The Real Estate Department advertised the Request for Proposals in 
the San Francisco Independent and placed a For Lease sign in the storefront window; 
and, 

WHEREAS, Only one written proposal for lease of the premises was received and 
the Parking Authority Commission approved the lease terms and conditions by adopting 
Resolution No. 101-00-PA on January 4, 2000; now, therefore, be it 



BOARD Of SUPERVISORS 



RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San 
Francisco hereby approve the lease between the Parking Authority of the City and 
County of San Francisco ("Parking Authority"), as landlord, and Azad H Nejad, et al, as 
tenant, for Moscone Center Garage commercial space nos. 6 & 7, located at 247-249 
Third Street, San Francisco, California. Said lease shall be in a form approved by the 
City Attorney. A draft copy of this lease is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board 
of Supervisors in File No. 000073 ; and be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, That this lease shall commence on or about March 1, 
SfcoOO and expire on February 28, 2005. The initial base rent of $2,250 per month, for the 
1,000 square feet of rentable area, shall be adjusted annually for any increase in the 
Consumer Price Index. Tenant shall pay for all utilities and services provided to the 
premises and shall have an option to extend the term an additional five term. 

RECOMMENDED: 



Director, Parking Authority 



IP Director of Property 
(Real Estate) 



*OARDOF SUPERVISORS 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 00-0073 



Department: 

Item: 

Location: 

Lessor: 

Lessee: 

Purpose of Lease: 



No. of Square Feet 
and Cost Per Month 
Payable by Azad H. 
Nejad to the City: 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



Parking Authority 
Real Estate Department 

Resolution approving a new commercial lease for 
Space Nos. 6 and 7 at the Moscone Center Garage. 

Moscone Center Garage, Spaces No. 6 and 7, 
located at 247-249 Third Street 

Parking Authority of the City and County of San 
Francisco 

Azad H. Nejad, et. al. 

Operation of a copy, mail/shipping and Internet 
link center 



1,000 square feet at $2,250 per month ($2.25 per 
square foot per month) or $27,000 annually. These 
lease costs would be adjusted annually for any 
increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

Commencing on or about March 1, 2000 and 
extending for five years, or through February 28, 
2005. 

One additional five-year term. 



Utilities, Janitor and 

Tenant Improvements: Tenant shall pay for all utilities and services to the 

premises, including all tenant improvements. 

Tenant will receive a rent credit for installation of 

a floor covering within the premises estimated to 

cost up to a maximum of $3,000. 



Description: 



In 1986, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
Director of Property to negotiate leases of 
commercial space at the Moscone Center Garage, 
instead of requiring that such leases be 
competitively bid in order to provide better control 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

of the tenant mix. However, on June 1, 1999, the 
Parking Authority authorized the Director of 
Property to solicit Request for Proposals (RFPs) for 
the subject vacant commercial Space Nos. 6 and 7 
of the Moscone Center Garage (Resolution No. 116- 
PA). Mr. Gerald Romani of the Real Estate 
Department advises that the RFP for the subject 
space was advertised in the San Francisco 
Independent newspaper for two days and the Real 
Estate Department placed a For Lease sign in the 
storefront window in the Moscone Center Garage 
for at least four months between May through 
September of 1999. In response, Mr. Romani 
reports that the Real Estate Department received 
several inquiries, but only one written proposal for 
the subject space, which is the subject of the 
proposed resolution. 

The proposed resolution would approve a new lease 
between the Parking Authority and Azad Nejad, et. 
al. for use of the commercial spaces numbered 6 
and 7 in the Moscone Center Garage, located at 
247-249 Third Street, between Folsom and Howard 
Streets. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Romani, the Visitors and 

Convention Bureau's accounting staff was 
previously located in the subject Space No. 6 and 7 
at a rate of $1,308 per month (approximately $1.31 
per square foot for 1,000 square feet), or $15,696 
annually. Mr. Romani advises that the Visitors and 
Convention Bureau staff vacated the subject space 
in April of 1998 in order to consolidate their offices. 
Although the subject space has been vacant for 
approximately 20 months, this new lease of $27,000 
annually will result in $11,304 more annually than 
the previous lease of $15,696 annually, an increase 
of 72 percent. According to Mr. Romani, the 
proposed rent falls within the acceptable range of 
fair market rents for the subject property. Mr. 
Romani states that the reason the space has been 
vacant for approximately 20 months is because 
after no responses were initially received for 
renting the space, the Parking Authority contracted 
with the Bureau of Building Repair to remove the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



I 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

old carpeting, repair the walls and repaint the 
space at a cost of approximately $4,700, which 
delayed the ability to show the subject property. 

2. Mr. Romani advises that there was probably only 
one formal response to the proposed RFP because of 
the location of the subject property. Although the 
official address is listed as 247-249 Third Street, 
Mr. Romani notes that the actual location is in a 
walkway between Third Street and Hawthorne 
Lane, which does not receive much foot traffic, as 
shown in the crosshatched area of the Attachment, 
provided by the Real Estate Department. According 
to Mr. Romani, there are currently plans to install 
signage on Third Street identifying the businesses 
that are located within the Moscone Center Garage. 

3. According to Mr. Ron Szeto of the Parking 
Authority, the $27,000 of annual income from the 
proposed lease revenues would be deposited into 
the City's General Fund. 

4. The last line of the proposed resolution currently 
reads "...have an option to extend the term an 
additional five term". The Budget Analyst notes 
that the proposed resolution should be amended to 
clarify the last line of the text to insert the word 
"year" before the last word "term", so that the 
option would be to "extend the term an additional 
five-year term". 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to insert the 

word "year" as the second to last word on the last 
line of text in the proposed resolution. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



» 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Attachment 



GO 

H 

m 

-a 

> 

-z. 






HOWARD STREET 




> 

= 
C 

8 

- 

r 
> 



CLEMENTINA STREET 



Exhibit A-l 44 



rlu 



City and County of San Francisco Real Estate Division 





Administrative Services Department 

X January 11,2000 r 

Proposed Commercial Lease 

Moscone Center Garage 

Tenant: A/ad H. Nejad, et al c 

/ Jhrough William L. Lee 

Tn City Administrator 

Honorable Board of Supervisors tf^frO 7 3 

City and County of San Francisco 
City Hall, Room 244 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Board Members: 

We recommend approval of the attached proposed resolution authorizing a new lease 
between the Parking Authority of the City and County of San Francisco, as landlord, and 
Azad Nejad, et al, as tenant, for commercial space nos. 6 & 7 within the Moscone Center 
Garage (the "Garage"), located at 247-249 Third Street between Folsom and Howard 
Streets. The premises will be used for the operation of a copy, mail/shipping and Internet 
link center. 

Through the passage of Ordinance No. 254-86, the Board of Supervisors gave the Real 
Estate Department the ability to negotiate leases of commercial space at the Garage 
instead of competitively bidding such leases. In accordance with said ordinance and the 
authorization of the Parking Authority Commission by adoption of Resolution No. 1 16- 
99-PA the Real Estate Department advertised for a Request for Proposals in the San 
Francisco Independent. Several inquiries were made; however, Mr. Nejad submitted the 
only written proposal. The Parking Authority Commission approved the lease terms and 
conditions by adopting Resolution No. 101-00-PA on January 4, 2000. 

The proposed lease, of approximately 1,000 rentable square feet, has an initial base rent 
of $2,250 per month with annual adjustments for any increase in the Consumer Price 
Index. The tenant is responsible for payment of all utilities and services provided to the 
premises along with all tenant improvements made to such premises. The tenant will 
receive a rent credit for installation of a floor covering within the premises. The term of 
lease is five years with an estimated commencement date of March 1, 2000. The tenant 
has an option to extend the lease for an additional five term 

Sincere! 




cc: Bob Davis, Parking Authority 
Ron Szeto, Parking Authority 



»15) 554-9850 Office of the Director of Property H:\JRomani\NejadBOSl tr 

AX: (415)552-9216 25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 San Francisco. 94102 



1 



MOSCONE CENTER GARAGE 
COMMERCIAL LEASE 



between 



PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

as Landlord 



and 



AZAD H. NEJAD and AZADEH ASLAN-NEJAD, 

dba 

as Tenant 



For the lease of 



Commercial Space Nos. 6 & 7 

247-249 Third Street 
San Francisco, California 94103 



March 1, 2000 



* 



} I:\JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



Table of Contents 



1. BASIC LEASE INFORMATION 1 

2. PREMISES; AS IS CONDITION 3 

2.1. Lease Premises 3 

2.2. As Is Condition 4 

3. TERM 4 

3.1. Lease Term 4 

3.2. Confirmation of Commencement Date and Expiration Date 5 

3.3. Delay in Delivery of Possession 5 

3.4. Delays Caused by Tenant 5 

4. RENT 5 

4.1. Base Rent 5 

4.2. Adjustments in Base Rent 6 

4.3. Additional Charges 6 

4.4. Late Charges 6 

4.5. Default Interest 7 

5. USE 7 

5.1. Permitted Use 7 

5.2. No Unlawful Uses, Nuisances or Waste 

6. TENANT IMPROVEMENTS 7 

6.1. Tenant Improvement Work 7 

7. ALTERATIONS 7 

7.1. Tenant's Alterations 7 

7.2. Title to Improvements 8 

7.3. Tenant's Personal Property 8 

7.4. Authority's Alterations of the Building and Building Systems 8 

8. REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 8 

8.1. Authority's Repairs 8 

8.2. Tenant's Repairs 9 

9. LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES 9 

9.1. Liens 9 

9.2. Encumbrances 10 

10. UTILITIES AND SERVICES 10 

10.1. Utilities and Services 10 

10.2. Water and Energy Conservation; Mandatory or Voluntary Restrictions 10 

11. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND RISK MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 10 

11.1. Compliance with Laws 10 

11.2. Regulatory Approvals 1 1 

11.3. Compliance with Authority's Risk Management Requirements 11 



H URomani\Mosconecomml5 



12. SUBORDINATION 11 

13. INABILITY TO PERFORM 12 

14. DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION 12 

14.1. Damage and Destruction 12 

14.2. Waiver 13 

15. EMINENT DOMAIN 13 

15.1. Definitions 13 

15.2. General 13 

15.3. Total Taking; Automatic Termination 14 

15.4. Partial Taking; Election to Terminate 14 

15.5. Rent; Award 14 

15.6. Partial Taking; Continuation of Lease 14 

15.7. Temporary Takings 15 

16. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING 15 

16.1. Restriction on Assignment and Subletting 15 

16.2. Notice of Proposed Transfer 15 

16.3. Authority's Response 16 

16.4. Sublease or Recapture Space 17 

16.5. Effect of Sublease or Assignment 17 

16.6. Assumption by Transferee 17 

16.7. Indemnity for Relocation Benefits 18 

DEFAULT; REMEDIES 18 

17.1. Events of Default 18 

17.2. Remedies 19 

17.3. Waiver of Redemption 21 

17.4. Authority's Right to Cure Tenant's Defaults 21 

18. WAIVER OF CLAIMS; INDEMNIFICATION 22 

18.1. Limitation on Authority's Liability; Waiver of Claims 22 

18.2. Tenant's Indemnity 22 

19. INSURANCE 23 

19.1. Tenant's Insurance 23 

19.2. Tenant's Personal Property 24 

19.3. Authority's Self Insurance 25 

19.4. Waiver of Subrogation 25 

20. ACCESS BY AUTHORITY 25 

21. CERTIFICATES 25 

22. SECURITY DEPOSIT 26 

23. SURRENDER OF PREMISES 26 

24. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 27 

24.1. Definitions 27 

24.2. No Hazardous Materials 28 



H \JRomani\Mosconecomml 5 



24.3. Tenant's Environmental Indemnity 28 

24.4. Survival of Obligation 29 

25. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 29 

25.1. Extension Option 29 

26. GENERAL PROVISIONS 33 

26.1. Notices 33 

26.2. No Implied Waiver 33 

26.3. Amendments 33 

26.4. Authority 34 

26.5. Parties and Their Agents; Approvals 34 

26.6. Interpretation of Lease 34 

26.7. Successors and Assigns 34 

26.8. Brokers 35 

26.9. Severability 35 

26.10. Governing Law 35 

26.11. Entire Agreement 35 

26.12. Attorneys' Fees 35 

26.13. Holding Over 36 

26.14. Time of Essence 36 

26.15. Cumulative Remedies 36 

26.16. Survival of Indemnities 36 

26.17. Signs 36 

26.18. Relationship of the Parties 37 

26.19. Light and Air 37 

26.20. No Recording 37 

26.21. Options Personal 37 

26.22. Public Transit Information 37 

26.23. Taxes, Assessments, Licenses, Permit Fees and Liens 37 

26.24. Non-Liability of Authority Officials, Employees and Agents 38 

26.25. Wages and Working Conditions 38 

26.26. Non-Discrimination in Authority Contracts and Benefits Ordinance 38 

26.27. No Relocation Assistance; Waiver of Claims 39 

26.28. Conflicts of Interest 40 

26.29. Charter Provisions 40 

26.30. Drug-Free Workplace 40 

26.31. Counterparts 40 

26.32. Effective Date 40 

26.33. Sunshine Ordinance 40 



LIST OF EXHIBITS : 

EXHIBIT A - Floor Plan 

EXHIBIT B — Notice of Commencement Date 

EXHIBIT C — Tenant's Plans and Specifications 



in 



H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



MOSCONE CENTER GARAGE 
COMMERCIAL LEASE 



THIS COMMERCIAL LEASE (this "Lease"), dated for reference purposes only as of, is 
between the PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 
a public body corporate and politic ("Authority" or "Landlord"), created by the City and County 
of San Francisco (the "City") pursuant to the laws of the State of California, and AZAD H 

NEJAD AND AZADEH ASLAN-NEJAN, dba , a California corporation 

("Tenant"). 

Authority and Tenant hereby covenant and agree as follows: 

1. BASIC LEASE INFORMATION 

The following is a summary of basic lease information (the "Basic Lease Information"). 
Each item below shall be deemed to incorporate all of the terms in this Lease pertaining to such 
item. In the event of any conflict between the information in this Section and any more specific 
provision of this Lease, the more specific provision shall control. 



Lease Reference Date: 



November 14, 1999 



Landlord: 



Tenant: 



Building (Section 2.1): 



PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY 
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 
a public body corporate and politic 

AZAD H. NEJAD and AZADEH ASLAN- 

NEJAD, dba and permitted 

successors and assigns. 

Moscone Center Garage 

255 Third Street 

San Francisco, California 



Premises (Section 2. 1): 



Ground floor commercial space nos. 6 & 7 
located at 247-249 Third Street, San Francisco, 
California, as depicted on the plan attached as 
Exhibit A. 



Rentable Area of Premises 
(Section 2.1): 

Term (Section 3.1): 



Approximately 1,000 square feet 



Estimated commencement date: 
March 1,2000; 



H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



Base Rent (Section 4.1): 



Expiration date: February 28, 2005 
Annual Base Rent: $ 27,000 
($2.25 per sq. ft.) 
Monthly payments: $ 2,250 



Rent Adjustment Dates (Section 4.2): 



On each anniversary of the Commencement 
Date during the Term and the Extension Term, 
the current rent will be adjusted for any CPI 
increase; rent for the first year of the Extension 
Term will be the then Prevailing Market Rate. 



Use (Section 5.1): 

Tenant Improvements (Section 6 1): 



Copy, mail/shipping and Internet link center 

With the exception of the installation of a stan- 
dard commercial vinyl or carpet floor covering, 
for which Tenant will receive a rent credit, 
Tenant shall be responsible for the installation 
of any Tenant Improvements as well as the 
cost. 



Utilities and Services (Section 10.1): 



Tenant is responsible for the cost of all utilities 
and services provided to the Premises. 



Security Deposit (Section 22): 



$5,000 



Notice Address of Authority(Section 
26.1): 



Real Estate Department 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 
San Francisco, California 94102 
Attn: Director of Property 
Fax No.: (415)552-9216 



with a copy to: 



Parking Authority 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 410 
San Francisco, California 94102 
Attn: Director, Parking Authority 
Fax No. (415)554-9834 



and to: 



Office of the City Attorney 
City Hall, Room 234 



H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, California 94102-4682 

Attn: Donnell Choy 

Deputy City Attorney 
Fax No.: (415) 554-4736 



Key Contact for Authority: 



Telephone No. 



Jerry Romani 
(415)554-9876 



Alternate Contact for Authority: 



Steven Lee 



Telephone No. 



(415)554-9869 



Address for Tenant (Section 26.1): 



247 Third Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 
Fax No.: 



Key Contact for Tenant: 
Telephone No.: 



Azad H. Nejad 



Alternate Contact for Tenant: 
Telephone No.: 



Azadeh Aslan-Nejad 



Brokers (Section 26.8): None 

Other Noteworthy Provisions: 

2. PREMISES; AS IS CONDITION 

2.1. Lease Premises 

Subject to the provisions of this Lease, Authority leases to Tenant and Tenant leases from 
U Authority those premises in the building identif.ed in the Basic Lease Information (the 

"Building") and shown on the floor plan(s) attached hereto as Exhibit A-l (crosshatched area) 



H VJRomani\Mosconecomml5 



and Exhibit A-2 . (the "Premises"). The rentable area of the Premises specified in the Basic 
Lease Information shall be conclusive for all purposes hereof. The Building, land upon which 
the Building is located and all other improvements on and appurtenances to such land are 
referred to collectively as the "Property." Tenant shall have the non-exclusive right to use, 
together with other tenants in the Building, the restrooms located in the northwest corner of the 
Building. Tenant shall have the right to use one reserved parking stall on the basement level of 
the Moscone Center Garage as shown on Exhibit A-3 (crosshatched area) 

2.2. As Is Condition 

TENANT ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT THE PREMISES ARE BEING 
LEASED AND ACCEPTED IN THEIR " AS IS " CONDITION, WITHOUT 
REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND SUBJECT TO ALL 
APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THEIR USE, 
OCCUPANCY AND POSSESSION TENANT REPRESENTS AND WARRANTS TO 
AUTHORITYTHAT TENANT HAS INVESTIGATED AND INSPECTED, EITHER 
INDEPENDENTLY OR THROUGH AGENTS OF TENANT'S OWN CHOOSING, THE 
CONDITION OF THE PREMISES AND THE SUITABILITY OF THE PREMISES FOR 
TENANT'S INTENDED USE. TENANT HAS DETERMINED, BASED SOLELY ON ITS 
OWN INVESTIGATION, THAT THE PREMISES ARE SUITABLE FOR TENANT'S 
BUSINESS AND INTENDED USE TENANT ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT 
NEITHER AUTHORITYNOR ANY OF ITS AGENTS HAVE MADE, AND 
AUTHORITYHEREBY DISCLAIMS, ANY REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, 
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, CONCERNING THE RENTABLE AREA OF THE PREMISES, 
THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION OF THE PREMISES OR THE 
PROPERTY, THE PRESENT OR FUTURE SUITABILITY OF THE PREMISES FOR 
TENANT'S BUSINESS, OR ANY OTHER MATTER WHATSOEVER RELATING TO THE 
PREMISES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 

3. TERM 

3.1. Lease Term 

The Premises are leased for a term (the "Term") commencing on the date specified in the 
Basic Lease Information as the estimated commencement date (the "Estimated Commencement 
Date"), or such earlier date upon which Authority delivers and Tenant accepts possession of the 
Premises, subject to the provisions of Section 3.3 (Delay in Delivery of Possession) and 
Section 3.4 (Delays Caused by Tenant), below. The Term of this Lease shall end on the 
expiration date specified in the Basic Lease Information, unless sooner terminated pursuant to 
the provisions of this Lease. This Lease is subject to the Extension Option set forth in 
Section 25. 1 (Option to Extend Term). Authority shall deliver the Premises to Tenant on the 
Commencement Date in their then existing as is condition as further provided above, with no 
obligation of the Authority to make any improvements, repairs or alterations. 



H \JRomaniAMosconecomml5 



3.2. Confirmation of Commencement Date and Expiration Date 

The dates on which the Term commences and terminates pursuant hereto are referred to 
respectively as the "Commencement Date" and the "Expiration Date." If the Commencement 
Date occurs on a date other than the Estimated Commencement Date, then promptly following 
the Commencement Date Tenant shall deliver to Authority a notice substantially in the form 
attached hereto as Exhibit B . confirming the actual Commencement Date, but Tenant's failure to 
do so shall not affect the commencement of the Term. 

3.3. Delay in Delivery of Possession 

If Authority is unable to deliver possession of the Premises to Tenant on or before the 
Estimated Commencement Date, then the validity of this Lease shall not be affected thereby and 
Authority shall not be liable to Tenant for any Claims (as defined in Section 18 below) resulting 
therefrom, and Tenant waives all provisions of any laws to the contrary. In such case, the Term 
and regular payments of Base Rent and Additional Charges shall not commence until Authority 
delivers possession of the Premises. If the Term commences later or earlier than the Estimated 
Commencement Date, this Lease shall nevertheless expire on the Expiration Date, unless sooner 
terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof. 

3.4. Delays Caused by Tenant 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary above, if Authority's inability to deliver 
possession of the Premises on the Estimated Commencement Date results from Tenant's or its 
Agents' acts or omissions, then Base Rent and Additional Charges payable by Tenant hereunder 
shall commence on the date when Landlord would have delivered possession of the Premises but 
for such acts or omissions. 

4. RENT 

4.1. Base Rent 

Throughout the Term beginning on the Commencement Date, Tenant shall pay to 
Authority the annual Base Rent specified in the Basic Lease Information, provided that such sum 
shall be subject to escalation pursuant to Section 4.2 (Adjustments in Base Rent) (the "Base 
Rent"). The Base Rent shall be paid to Authority in advance, without prior demand and without 
any deduction, setoff or counterclaim whatsoever, in equal consecutive monthly payments on or 
before the first day of the Term and on or before the first day of each month thereafter. All sums 
payable by Tenant to Authority hereunder shall be paid in cash or by good check to the City and 
County of San Francisco in care of the Director of Property at the primary address for Authority 
specified in the Basic Lease Information, or such other place as Authority may designate in 
writing. If Tenant pays by check and such check is not honored, then Authority may require 
Tenant to make all future payments in cash or by cashier's check. If the Commencement Date 
occurs on a day other than the first day of a calendar month, or the Expiration Date occurs on a 
day other than the last day of a calendar month, then the Base Rent for such fractional month 
shall be prorated based on a thirty (30) day month. Within five (5) days after the parties execute 
this Lease, Tenant shall pay to Authority the Base Rent for the first full month 



H:\JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



4.2. Adjustments in Base Rent 

On each date specified in the Basic Lease Information for adjustment of the Base Rent 
(an "Adjustment Date"), the Base Rent payable under this Lease shall be adjusted as follows. 

The Consumer Price Index Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (base years 1982- 
1984 = 100) for San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area published by the United States 
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics ("Index") published most immediately 
preceding the Adjustment Date ("Adjustment Index"), shall be compared with the Index 
published most immediately preceding the Commencement Date ("Beginning Index"). 

If the Adjustment Index has increased over the Beginning Index, the Base Rent payable 
on and after the Adjustment Date shall be set by multiplying the Base Rent by a fraction, the 
numerator of which is the Adjustment Index and the denominator of which is the Beginning 
Index. In no event shall the monthly Base Rent on or after the Adjustment Date be less than the 
monthly Base Rent in effect immediately prior to the Adjustment Date. 

If the Index is changed so that the base year differs from that used as of the date most 
immediately preceding the Commencement Date, the Index shall be converted in accordance 
with the conversion factor published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics. If the Index is discontinued or revised during the Term, such other government index 
or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to obtain substantially the same 
result as would be obtained if the Index had not been discontinued or revised. 

4.3. Additional Charges 

Tenant shall pay to Authority any and all charges and other amounts required under this 
Lease as additional rent (collectively, "Additional Charges"). All such Additional Charges shall 
be payable to Authority at the same place and the same manner as the Base Rent is payable. 
Authority shall have the same remedies for a default in the payment of any Additional Charges 
as for a default in the payment of Base Rent. As used in this Lease, the term "Rent" shall include 
the Base Rent, Additional Charges and any other amounts Tenant is obligated to pay hereunder, 
whether or not any such amounts are specifically characterized as rent 

4.4. Late Charges 

If Tenant fails to pay any Rent or any portion of Rent within five (5) days following the 
due date, such unpaid amount shall be subject to a late payment charge equal to six percent (6%) 
of the unpaid amount in each instance The late payment charge has been agreed upon by 
Authority and Tenant, after negotiation, as a reasonable estimate of the additional administrative 
costs and detriment that Authority will incur as a result of any such failure by Tenant, the actual 
costs thereof being extremely difficult if not impossible to determine. The late payment charge 
constitutes liquidated damages to compensate Authority for its damages resulting from such 
failure to pay and shall be paid to Authority together with such unpaid amount. 



H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



4.5. Default Interest 

Any Rent, if not paid within five (5) days following the due date, shall bear interest from 
the due date until paid at the rate often percent (10%) per year or, if a higher rate is legally 
permissible, at the highest rate an individual is permitted to charge under law (the "Interest 
Rate"). However, interest shall not be payable on late charges incurred by Tenant nor on any 
amounts on which late charges are paid by Tenant to the extent this interest would cause the total 
interest to be in excess of that which an individual is lawfully permitted to charge. Payment of 
interest shall not excuse or cure any default by Tenant. 

5. USE 

5.1. Permitted Use 

Tenant shall use and continuously occupy the Premises during the Term solely for the use 
as may be specified in the Basic Lease Information, and for no other purpose. 

5.2. No Unlawful Uses, Nuisances or Waste 

Without limiting the foregoing, Tenant shall not use, occupy or permit the use or 
occupancy of any of the Premises in any unlawful manner or for any illegal purpose, or permit 
any offensive, noisy or hazardous use or any waste on or about the Premises. Tenant shall take 
all precautions to eliminate any nuisances or hazards relating to its activities on or about the 
Premises. Tenant shall not conduct any business, place any sales display, or advertise in any 
manner in areas outside the Premises, Building or on or about the Property. 



6. TENANT IMPROVEMENTS 

6.1. Tenant Improvement Work 

Tenant shall not make or permit any construction and installation of tenant 
improvements in the Premises (such work is referred to as the "Tenant Improvement Work" or 
"Tenant Improvements") without Authority's prior written consent, which consent may be 
withheld in Authority's sole and absolute discretion. All Tenant Improvements permitted 
hereunder shall be done, at Tenant's expense, in accordance with plans and specifications 
approved by Authority, only by duly licensed and bonded contractors or mechanics approved by 
Authority, and subject to any conditions that Authority may reasonably impose. Tenant shall 
receive a rent credit for the installation of a vinyl floor covering or a commercial grade carpet, 
which credit shall be applied to the first rental payment following such installation and 
acceptance by Authority. 

7. ALTERATIONS 

7.1. Tenant's Alterations 

Tenant shall not make or permit any alterations to the Building or to the heating, 
ventilating, air conditioning, plumbing, electrical, fire protection, life safety, security and other 

7 H:\JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



mechanical, electrical, communications systems of the Building ("Building Systems"), and shall 
not make or permit any alterations, installations, additions or improvements, structural or 
otherwise (collectively, "Alterations"), in, to or about the Premises, without Authority's prior 
written consent in each instance. All Alterations shall be done at Tenant's expense in accordance 
with plans and specifications approved by Authority, only by duly licensed and bonded 
contractors or mechanics approved by Authority, and subject to any conditions that Authority 
may reasonably impose. With respect to any Alterations which would be visible from the 
exterior of the Building, Authority may require Tenant, at Tenant's expense, to obtain the prior 
written approval of City's Arts Commission to the extent the Arts Commission has jurisdiction 
over the design of such proposed alterations under City's Charter Section 5 103. If the cost of 
any Alterations is in excess of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), then Tenant shall pay to 
Authority an administrative fee equal to ten percent (10%) of the total "hard" costs of the work 
to compensate Authority for the costs of review. 

7.2. Title to Improvements 

Except for Tenant's Personal Property (as described in the next section), or as may be 
specifically provided to the contrary in the approved Plans, all appurtenances, fixtures, 
improvements, equipment, additions, and other property attached or affixed to or installed in the 
Premises at the Commencement Date or during the Term, including, without limitation, the 
Tenant Improvements and any Alterations, shall be and remain Authority's property Tenant 
may not remove any such property at any time during or after the Term unless Authority so 
requests as further provided in Section 23 (Surrender), below. 

7.3. Tenant's Personal Property 

All furniture, trade fixtures, office equipment and articles of movable personal property 
installed in the Premises by or for the account of Tenant, without expense to Authority, and that 
can be removed without structural or other damage to the Premises (collectively, "Tenant's 
Personal Property") shall be and remain Tenant's property Tenant may remove its Personal 
Property at any time during the Term, subject to the provisions of Section 23 (Surrender of 
Premises), below. Tenant shall pay any taxes or other impositions levied or assessed upon 
Tenant's Personal Property, at least ten (10) days prior to delinquency, and shall deliver 
satisfactory evidence of such payment to Authority upon request 

7.4. Authority's Alterations of the Building and Building Systems 

Authority reserves the right at any time to make alterations, additions, repairs, deletions 
or improvements to the common areas or any other part of the Building or the Building Systems, 
provided that any such alterations or additions shall not materially adversely affect the functional 
utilization of the Premises for the uses permitted hereunder. 

8. REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 

8.1. Authority's Repairs 

Authority shall repair and maintain the structural portions of the Building, including the 
Building Systems, the elevators and the common areas; provided, however, Tenant shall 



H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



reimburse Authority for any damage, excluding normal wear and tear, caused by any act or 
omission of Tenant, its Agents or Invitees (as such terms are defined in Section 26.5 (Parties and 
their Agents), below). For the purpose of making any such repairs, Authority may use structures 
in the Premises where reasonably required by the character of the work to be performed, 
provided that such work shall not block the main entrance to the Premises nor unreasonably 
interfere with Tenant's business. Tenant waives any claim for damages for any injury or 
inconvenience to or interference with Tenant's business, any loss of occupancy or quiet 
enjoyment of the Premises or any other loss occasioned thereby. 

8.2. Tenant's Repairs 

Tenant shall maintain, at no expense to Authority, the Premises (including, without 
limitation, the floors, interior plumbing, electrical wiring, fixtures and equipment) in good repair 
and working order and in a clean, secure, safe and sanitary condition. Tenant shall promptly 
make all repairs and replacements: (a) at no cost to the Authority, (b) by licensed contractors or 
qualified mechanics approved by Authority, (c) so that the same shall be at least equal in quality, 
value and utility to the original work or installation, (d) in a manner and using equipment and 
materials that will not interfere with or impair the operations, use or occupation of the Building 
or the Building Systems, and (e) in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. If the 
cost of any such repairs or replacements is in excess of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) and is 
due to acts or omissions of Tenant, its Agents or Invitees, then Tenant shall pay to Authority an 
administrative fee equal to ten percent (10%) of the total "hard" costs of the work. Tenant 
hereby waives all rights to make repairs at ity's expense under Sections 1941 and 1942 of the 
California Civil Code or under any similar law, statute or ordinance now or hereafter in effect. 

9. LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES 

9.1. Liens 

Tenant shall keep the Premises and the rest of the Property free from any liens arising out 
of any work performed, material furnished or obligations incurred by or for Tenant. In the event 
Tenant does not, within five (5) days following the imposition of any such lien, cause the lien to 
be released of record by payment or posting of a proper bond, Authority shall have, in addition to 
all other remedies, the right, but not the obligation, to cause the lien to be released by such means 
as it shall deem proper, including, but not limited to, payment of the claim giving rise to such 
lien. All such sums paid by Authority and all expenses incurred by it in connection therewith 
(including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees) shall be payable to Authority by 
Tenant upon demand. Authority shall have the right to post on the Premises any notices that 
Authority may deem proper for the protection of City, the Premises, and the Building, from 
mechanics' and materialmen's liens. Tenant shall give to Authority at least fifteen (15) days' 
prior written notice of commencement of any Alteration, repair or construction on the Premises. 
Tenant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Authority and its Agents harmless from and against 
any claims for mechanic's, materialmen's or other liens in connection with any Alterations, 
repairs or construction on the Premises, or materials furnished or obligations incurred by or for 
Tenant. 



H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



9.2. Encumbrances 

Tenant shall not create, permit or suffer any liens or encumbrances affecting any portion 
of the Premises, the Property or Authority's interest therein or under this Lease. 

10. UTILITIES AND SERVICES 

10.1. Utilities and Services 

Electrical power has been installed in the Premises and water and telephone are available 
Tenant has inspected the Premises and acknowledges the amount of electrical power supplied to 
the Premises is sufficient for Tenant's intended use Tenant, at its cost, shall be responsible for 
the installation of other utilities in the Premises and shall pay the entire cost of all utilities and 
other services provided to the Premises 

10.2. Water and Energy Conservation; Mandatory or Voluntary Restrictions 

In the event any law, ordinance code or governmental or regulatory guideline imposes 
mandatory or voluntary controls on Authority or the Property or any part thereof, relating to the 
use or conservation of energy, water, gas, light or electricity or the reduction of automobile or 
other emissions, or in the event Authority is required or elects to make alterations to any part of 
the Building in order to comply with such mandatory or voluntary controls or guidelines, such 
compliance and the making of such alterations shall in no event entitle Tenant to any damages, 
relieve Tenant of the obligation to pay the full Base Rent and Additional Charges reserved 
hereunder or to perform each of its other covenants hereunder or constitute or be construed as a 
constructive or other eviction of Tenant 

11. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND RISK MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 

11.1. Compliance with Laws 

Tenant shall promptly comply, at no cost to the Authority, with all present or future laws, 
ordinance, resolution, regulation, requirement, proclamation, order or decree of any municipal, 
county, state or federal government or other governmental or regulatory authority relating to the 
Premises or the use or occupancy thereof (the "Legal Requirements") and with any and all 
recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions affecting the Property or any portion thereof, 
whether in effect at the time of the execution of this Lease or adopted or recorded at any time 
thereafter and whether or not within the present contemplation of the parties. Tenant further 
understands and agrees that it is Tenant's obligation, at no cost to the Authority, to cause the 
Premises and Tenant's uses thereof to be conducted in compliance with the Americans With 
Disabilities Act, 42 U S.C.A. §§ 12101 et seq . Any Alteration made by or on behalf of Tenant 
pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall compty with the provisions of Section 8.2 
(Tenant's Repairs), above. The parties acknowledge and agree that Tenant's obligation to 
comply with all Laws as provided herein is a material part of the bargained for consideration 
under this Lease. Tenant's obligation under this Section shall include, without limitation, the 
responsibility of Tenant to make substantial or structural repairs and Alterations to the Premises 
(including any of the Tenant Improvements or any of Tenant's Alterations), regardless of, among 
other factors, the relationship of the cost of curative action to the Rent under this Lease, the 



JO H \JRomani\Moscooecomml5 



length of the then remaining Term hereof, the relative benefit of the repairs to Tenant or 
Authority, the degree to which the curative action may interfere with Tenant's use or enjoyment 
of the Premises, the likelihood that the parties contemplated the particular Law involved, and 
whether the Law involved is related to Tenant's particular use of the Premises. 

11.2. Regulatory Approvals 

Tenant understands and agrees that Tenant's use of the Premises and construction 
of any Tenant Improvements permitted hereunder may require authorizations, approvals or 
permits from governmental regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the Premises, including, 
without limitation, City agencies and the Parking Authority. Tenant shall be solely responsible 
for obtaining any and all such regulatory approvals. Tenant shall not seek any regulatory 
approval without first obtaining the written consent of Authority under this Lease. Tenant shall 
bear all costs associated with applying for and obtaining with any necessary or appropriate 
regulatory approval and shall be solely responsible for satisfying any and all conditions imposed 
by regulatory agencies as part of a regulatory approval; provided, however, any such condition 
that could affect use or occupancy of the Property or Authority's intent therein must first be 
approved by Authority in its sole discretion. Any fines or penalties levied as a result of Tenant's 
failure to comply with the terms and conditions of any regulatory approval shall be immediately 
paid and discharged by Tenant, and Authority shall have no liability, monetary or otherwise, for 
any such fines or penalties. Tenant shall Indemnify Authority and the other Indemnified Parties 
(as defined below) hereunder against all Claims (as defined below) arising in connection with 
Tenant's failure to obtain or failure by Tenant, its Agents or Invitees to comply with the terms 
and conditions of any regulatory approval. 

11.3. Compliance with City's Risk Management Requirements 

Tenant shall not do anything, or permit anything to be done, in or about the Premises 
which would be prohibited by or increase rates under a standard form fire insurance policy or 
subject Authority to potential premises liability. Tenant shall faithfully observe, at no cost to the 
Authority, any and all requirements of City's Risk Manager with respect to Tenant's use and 
occupancy of the Premises, so long as such requirements do not unreasonably interfere with 
Tenant's use of the Premises or are otherwise connected with standard prudent commercial 
practices of other landlords. 

12. SUBORDINATION 

This Lease is and shall be subordinate to any reciprocal easement agreement, ground 
lease, facilities lease or other underlying lease and the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust and 
all renewals, modifications, consolidations, replacements and extensions of any of the foregoing, 
that may now exist or hereafter be executed by Authority affecting the Property, or any part 
thereof, or Authority's interest therein, without the necessity of executing any instrument to 
effectuate such subordination; provided, however, upon Landlord's request, Tenant, or Tenant's 
successor-in-interest, shall execute and deliver any and all instruments desired by Landlord 
evidencing such subordination in the manner requested by Landlord. Notwithstanding the 
foregoing, Authority or the holder shall, in its respective discretion, have the right to subordinate 
any such interests to this Lease. If any ground lease or underlying lease terminates for any 



] ] H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



reason or any mortgage or deed of trust is foreclosed or a conveyance in lieu of foreclosure is 
made for any reason, Tenant shall attorn to the successor-in-interest to Authority, at the option of 
such successor-in-interest. The provisions of this Section shall be self-operative and no further 
instrument shall be required. Tenant agrees, however, to execute and deliver, upon demand by 
Authority and in the form requested by Authority, any additional documents evidencing the 
priority or subordination of this Lease. 

13. INABILITY TO PERFORM 

No actual or constructive eviction, in whole or in part, shall entitle Tenant to any 
abatement or diminution of Rent or relieve Tenant from any of its obligations under this Lease. 
If Authority is unable to perform or is delayed in performing any of Authority's obligations 
under this Lease, by reason of acts of God, accidents, breakage, repairs, strikes, lockouts, other 
labor disputes, protests, riots, demonstrations, inabili'y to obtain utilities or materials or by any 
other reason beyond Authority's reasonable control, no such inability or delay shall constitute an 
eviction under this Lease, or impose any liability upon Authority or its Agents by reason of 
inconvenience, annoyance, interruption, injury or loss to or interference with Tenant's business 
or use and occupancy or quiet enjoyment of the Premises or any loss or damage occasioned 
thereby. Tenant hereby waives and releases any right to terminate this Lease under 
Section 1932, subdivision 1 of the California Civil Code or any similar law, statute or ordinance 
now or hereafter in effect. 

14. DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION 

14.1. Damage and Destruction 

If the Premises or the Building is damaged by fire or other casualty, then Authority shall 
repair the same provided that funds for such repairs are appropriated by City's Board of 
Supervisors, in its sole discretion, for such purpose and that such repairs can be made within two 
hundred ten (210) days after the date of such damage (the "Repair Period") In the event such 
conditions are satisfied, this Lease shall remain in full force and effect except that Tenant shall 
be entitled to a proportionate reduction of Base Rent and Additional Charges during the period of 
such repairs based upon the extent to which such damage and the making of such repairs 
materially interferes with Tenant's use or occupancy of the Premises. 

Authority shall use its best efforts to notify Tenant within ninety (90) days after the date 
of such damage whether or not such repairs can be made within the Repair Period, and 
Authority's determination thereof shall be binding on Tenant. If such repairs cannot be made 
within the Repair Period, Authority shall have the option to notify Tenant of (a) Authority's 
intention to repair such damage and diligently prosecute such repairs to completion within a 
reasonable period after the Repair Period, subject to the Board of Supervisor's appropriation of 
all necessary funds, in which event this Lease shall continue in full force and effect and the Base 
Rent and Additional Charges shall be reduced as provided herein, or (b) Authority's election to 
terminate this Lease as of a date specified in such notice, which date shall be not less than thirty 
(30) nor more than sixty (60) days after notice is given by Authority. In case of termination, the 
Base Rent and Additional Charges shall be reduced as provided above, and Tenant shall pay such 
reduced Base Rent and Additional Charges up to the date of termination 



12 H:\JRomani\Mosconecomml5 






If at any time during the last twelve (12) months of the Term of this Lease, the Premises 
or the Building is damaged or destroyed, then either Authority or Tenant may terminate this 
Lease by giving written notice to the other party of its election to do so within thirty (30) days 
after the date of the occurrence of such damage; provided, however, Tenant may terminate only 
if such damage or destruction substantially impairs its use or occupancy of the Premises for the 
uses permitted hereunder. The effective date of termination shall be specified in the notice of 
termination, which date shall not be more than thirty (30) days from the date of the notice. 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Lease, Authority shall have no 
obligation to repair the Premises or the Building in the event the damage or destruction is 
attributable to any act or omission of Tenant, its Agents or Invitees. In no event shall 
Authoritybe required to repair any damage to Tenant's Personal Property or any paneling, 
decorations, railings, floor coverings, or any Tenant Improvements or Alterations installed or 
made on the Premises by or at the expense of Tenant. In the event the Premises or the Building 
is substantially damaged or destroyed and Authority intends to rebuild for public purposes 
inconsistent with this Lease, Authority may terminate this Lease upon written notice to Tenant. 

14.2. Waiver 

Authority and Tenant intend that the provisions of this Section govern fully in the event 
of any damage or destruction and accordingly, Authority and Tenant each hereby waives the 
provisions of Section 1932, subdivision 2, Section 1933, subdivision 4 and Sections 1941 and 
1942, of the Civil Code of California or under any similar law, statute or ordinance now or 
hereafter in effect. 

15. EMINENT DOMAIN 

15.1. Definitions 

(a) "Taking" means a talcing or damaging, including severance damage, by 
eminent domain, inverse condemnation or for any public or quasi-public use under law. A 
Taking may occur pursuant to the recording of a final order of condemnation, or by voluntary 
sale or conveyance in lieu of condemnation or in settlement of a condemnation action. 

(b) "Date of Taking" means the earlier of (i) the date upon which title to the 
portion of the Property taken passes to and vests in the condemnor or (ii) the date on which 
Tenant is dispossessed. 

(c) "Award" means all compensation, sums or anything or value paid, 
awarded or received for a Taking, whether pursuant to judgment, agreement, settlement or 
otherwise. 

15.2. General 

If during the Term or during the period between the execution of this Lease and the 
Commencement Date, there is any Taking of all or any part of the Premises or any interest in this 
Lease, the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be determined pursuant to this 
Section. Authorityand Tenant intend that the provisions hereof govern fully in the event of a 



]3 H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



Taking and accordingly, the parties each hereby waive any right to terminate this Lease in whole 
or in part under Sections 1265.10, 1265.40, 1265.120 and 1265.130 of the California Code of 
Civil Procedure or under any similar law now or hereafter in effect. 

15.3. Total Taking; Automatic Termination 

If there is a total Taking of the Premises, then this Lease shall terminate as of the Date of 
Taking. 

15.4. Partial Taking; Election to Terminate. 

(a) If there is a Taking of any portion (but less than all) of the Premises, then 
this Lease shall terminate in its entirety under either of the following circumstances: (i) if all of 
the following exist: (A) the partial Taking renders the remaining portion of the Premises 
untenantable or unsuitable for continued use by Tenant, (B) the condition rendering the Premises 
untenantable or unsuitable either is not curable or is curable but Authority is unwilling or unable 
to cure such condition, and (C) Tenant elects to terminate; or (ii) if Authority elects to terminate, 
provided, however, that this Lease shall not terminate if Tenant agrees to, and does, pay full Rent 
and Additional Charges, without abatement, and otherwise agrees to, and does, fully perform all 
of its obligations hereunder. 

(b) If there is a partial Taking of a substantial portion of the Building but not 
the Premises, Authority shall have the right to terminate this Lease in its entirety 

(c) Either party electing to terminate under the provisions of this Section 15 
shall do so by giving the other party written notice to the other party before or within thirty (30) 
days after the Date of Taking, and thereafter this Lease shall terminate upon the later of the 
thirtieth (30th) day after such written notice is given or the Date of Taking. 

15.5. Rent; Award 

Upon termination of this Lease pursuant to an election under Section 1 5.4 above, then: 
(i) Tenant's obligation to pay Rent shall continue up until the date of termination, and thereafter 
shall cease, except that Rent shall be reduced as provided in Section 15 6 below for any period 
during which this Lease continues in effect after the Date of Taking, and (ii) Authority shall be 
entitled to the entire Award in connection therewith (including, but not limited to, any portion of 
the Award made for the value of the leasehold estate created by this Lease), and Tenant shall 
have no claim against Authority or the value of any unexpired term of this Lease, provided that 
Tenant may make a separate claim for compensation, and Tenant shall receive any Award made 
specifically to Tenant, for Tenant's relocation expenses or the interruption of or damage to 
Tenant's business or damage to Tenant's Personal Property. 

15.6. Partial Taking; Continuation of Lease 

If there is a partial Taking of the Premises under circumstances where this Lease is not 
terminated in its entirety under Section 15.4 above, then this Lease shall terminate as to the 
portion of the Premises so taken, but shall remain in full force and effect as to the portion not 
taken, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be as follows: (a) Base Rent shall be 



]4 H'VJRomani\Mosconecomml5 



reduced by an amount that is in the same ratio to the Base Rent as the area of the Premises taken 
bears to the area of the Premises prior to the Date of Taking; provided, however, in no event 
shall the monthly Base Rent be reduced to less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the monthly 
Base Rent immediately prior to the Date of Taking, and (b) Authority shall be entitled to the 
entire Award in connection therewith (including, but not limited to, any portion of the Award 
made for the value of the leasehold estate created by this Lease), and Tenant shall have no claim 
against Authority for the value of any unexpired term of this Lease, provided that Tenant may 
make a separate claim for compensation, and Tenant shall receive any Award made specifically 
to Tenant, for Tenant's relocation expenses or the interruption of or damage to Tenant's business 
or damage to Tenant's Personal Property. 

15.7. Temporary Takings 

Notwithstanding anything to contrary in this Section, if a Taking occurs with respect to 
all or any part of the Premises for a limited period of time not in excess of one hundred eighty 
(180) consecutive days, this Lease shall remain unaffected thereby, and Tenant shall continue to 
pay Rent and to perform all of the terms, conditions and covenants of this Lease. In the event of 
such temporary Taking, Tenant shall be entitled to receive that portion of any Award 
representing compensation for the use or occupancy of the Premises during the Term up to the 
total Rent owing by Tenant for the period of the Taking, and Authority shall be entitled to 
receive the balance of any Award. 

16. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING 

16.1. Restriction on Assignment and Subletting 

Tenant shall not directly or indirectly (including, without limitation, by merger, 
acquisition or other transfer of any controlling interest in Tenant), voluntarily or by operation of 
law, sell, assign, encumber, pledge or otherwise transfer any part of its interest in or rights with 
respect to the Premises or its leasehold estate hereunder (collectively, an "Assignment"), or 
permit or license any portion of the Premises to be used or occupied by anyone other than itself, 
or sublet any portion of the Premises (collectively, "Sublease"), without Authority's prior written 
consent in each instance, as provided hereinbelow. 

16.2. Notice of Proposed Transfer 

If Tenant desires to enter into an Assignment or a Sublease, it shall give written notice (a 
"Notice of Proposed Transfer") to Authority of its intention to do so. The Notice of Proposed 
Transfer shall identify the proposed transferee and state the terms and conditions of the proposed 
Assignment or Sublease. Tenant shall deliver to Landlord with its request for Landlord's 
consent the proposed Assignment or Sublease and current financial statements of the proposed 
Transferee, prepared by an independent certified public accountant, and promptly upon 
Landlord's request for same, any additional documents or information reasonably related to the 
proposed transaction or Transferee. 



15 



H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



16.3. Authority's Response 

Within twenty (20) business days after Authority's receipt of the Notice of Proposed 
Transfer (the "Response Period"), Authority may elect, by written notice to Tenant, to: 
(a) sublease the portion of the Premises specified in the Notice of Proposed Transfer on the terms 
and conditions set forth in such notice, except as otherwise provided in Section 16.4 (Sublease or 
Recapture Space), or (b) terminate this Lease as to the portion (including all) of the Premises that 
is specified in the Notice of Proposed Transfer, with a proportionate reduction in Base Rent (a 
"Recapture"). 

If Authority declines to exercise either of its options provided above, then Tenant shall 
have ninety (90) days following the earlier of (i) Authority's notice that it will not elect either 
such option or (ii) the expiration of the Response Period, to enter into such Assignment or 
Sublease, subject to Authority's prior written approval of the proposed assignee or subtenant 
(collectively, Transferee") and the terms and conditions of the proposed Sublease or Assignment 
However, fifty percent (50%) of any rent or other consideration realized by Tenant under any 
such Assignment or Sublease in excess of the Base Rent and Additional Charges payable 
hereunder (or the amount thereof proportionate to the portion of the Premises subject to such 
Sublease or Recapture) shall be paid to Authority, after Tenant has recovered any reasonable 
brokers' commissions and the reasonable cost of any leasehold improvements that Tenant has 
incurred in connection with such Sublease or Recapture Tenant shall provide Authority with 
such information regarding the proposed Transferee and the Assignment or Sublease as 
Authority may reasonably request Authority agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold its 
approval of any proposed Transferee. 

If after Authority declines to exercise any of the foregoing options Tenant desires to enter 
into such Assignment or Sublease (i) on terms and conditions materially more favorable to 
Tenant than those contained in the Notice of Proposed Transfer or (ii) with a Transferee that is 
currently a tenant or other occupant of the Building, then Tenant shall give Authority a new 
Notice of Proposed Transfer, which notice shall state the terms and conditions of such 
Assignment or Sublease and identify the proposed Transferee, and Authority shall again be 
entitled to elect one of the options provided in clauses (a) and (b) at any time within twenty (20) 
business days after Authority's receipt of such new Notice of Proposed Transfer. 

In the event Authority elects either of the options provided in clauses (a) or (b), Authority 
shall be entitled to enter into a lease, sublease or assignment agreement with respect to the 
Premises (or portion thereof specified in such new Notice of Proposed Transfer) with the 
proposed Transferee identified in Tenant's notice. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any event of default by Tenant is outstanding hereunder 
at the time of Tenant's Notice of Proposed Transfer (or if any event shall have occurred which 
with the giving of notice or the passage of time or both would constitute such a default), then 
Authority may elect by notice to Tenant to refuse to consent to Tenant's proposed Transfer and 
pursue any of its right or remedies hereunder or at law or in equity. 



16 H:\JRofnanAMosconecomml5 



16.4. Sublease or Recapture Space 

If Authority elects to Sublease or Recapture from Tenant as described in Section 16.3, 
Authority's Response, the following shall apply: 

(a) In the case of a Sublease, (i) Authority shall have the right to use the 
portion of the Premises covered by the Notice of Proposed Transfer (the "Sublease Space") for 
any legal purpose, (ii) the rent payable by Authority to Tenant shall be the lesser of (A) the 
amount in the Notice of Proposed Transfer or (B) the Base Rent payable by Tenant under this 
Lease at the time of the Sublease (or the amount thereof proportionate to the Sublease Space if 
for less than the entire Premises), (iii) Authority may make alterations and improvements to the 
Sublease Space and may remove any such alterations or improvements, in whole or in part, prior 
to or upon the expiration of the Sublease, provided that Authority shall repair any damage or 
injury to the Sublease Space caused by such removal, (iv) Authority shall have the right to 
further sublease or assign the Sublease Space to any party, without the consent of Tenant, and 
(v) Tenant shall pay to Authority on demand any costs incurred by Authority in physically 
separating the Sublease Space (if less than the entire Premises) from the balance of the Premises 
and in complying with any applicable laws or regulations relating to such separation. 

(b) In the case of Recapture, (i) the portion of the Premises subject to the 
Recapture (the "Recapture Space") shall be deleted from the Premises for all purposes hereunder, 
and Tenant and Authority shall be relieved of all their rights and obligations hereunder with 
respect to the Recapture Space except to the extent the same would survive the Expiration Date 
or other termination of this Lease pursuant to the provisions hereof, and (ii) Authority shall pay 
any cost incurred in physically separating the Recapture Space (if less than the entire Premises) 
from the balance of the Premises and in complying with any applicable governmental laws or 
regulations relating to such separation. 

16.5. Effect of Sublease or Assignment 

No Sublease or Assignment by Tenant nor any consent by Authority thereto shall relieve 
Tenant, or any guarantor, of any obligation to be performed by Tenant under this Lease. Any 
Sublease or Assignment not in compliance with this Section shall be void and, at Authority's 
option, shall constitute a material default by Tenant under this Lease. The acceptance of any 
Base Rent or other payments by Authority from a proposed Transferee shall not constitute 
consent to such Sublease or Assignment by Authority or recognition of any Transferee, or a 
waiver by Authority of any failure of Tenant or other transferor to comply with this Section. If 
there is an Assignment or Sublet, whether in violation of or in compliance with this Section, in 
the event of default by any Transferee, or any successor of Tenant, in the performance or 
observance of any of the terms of this Lease or any Sublease or Assignment agreement, Landlord 
may proceed directly against Tenant without the necessity of exhausting remedies against such 
Transferee or successor. 

16.6. Assumption by Transferee 

Each Transferee (other than Authority) shall assume all obligations of Tenant under this 
Lease and shall be liable jointly and severally with Tenant for the payment of the Base Rent and 



j 7 H:\JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



Additional Charges, and for the performance of all the terms, covenants and conditions to be 
performed on Tenant's part hereunder. No Assignment shall be binding on Authority unless 
Tenant or Transferee has delivered to Authority a counterpart of the Assignment and an 
instrument in recordable form that contains a covenant of assumption by such Transferee 
satisfactory in form and substance to Authority. However, the failure or refusal of such 
Transferee to execute such instrument of assumption shall not release such Transferee from its 
liability as set forth above. Tenant shall reimburse Authority on demand for any reasonable costs 
that may be incurred by Authority in connection with any proposed Sublease or Assignment, 
including, without limitation, the costs of making investigations as to the acceptability of the 
proposed Transferee and legal costs incurred in connection with the granting of any requested 
consent. 

16.7. Indemnity for Relocation Benefits 

Without limiting Section 16 6 (Assumption by Transferee) above. Tenant shall cause any 
Transferee to expressly waive entitlement to any and all relocation assistance and benefits in 
connection with this Lease. Tenant shall Indemnify Authority for any and all Losses arising out 
of any relocation assistance or benefits payable to any Transferee. 

17. DEFAULT; REMEDIES 

17.1. Events of Default 

Any of the following shall constitute an event of default (the "Event of Default") by 
Tenant hereunder: 

(a) a failure to pay Base Rent or Additional Charges when due, and such 
failure continues for three (3) days after the date of written notice by Authority. However, 
Authority shall not be required to provide such notice more than twice during any twelve (12) 
month period, and any such failure by Tenant after Tenant has received two (2) such notices in 
such 12-month period shall constitute a default by Tenant hereunder without any further action 
by Authority or opportunity of Tenant to cure except as may be required by Section 1161 of the 
California Code of Civil Procedure; 

(b) a failure to comply with any other covenant, condition or representation 
made under this Lease and such failure continues for fifteen (15) days after the date of written 
notice by Authority, provided that if such default is not capable of cure within such 15-day 
period, Tenant shall have a reasonable period to complete such cure if Tenant promptly 
undertakes action to cure such default within such 15-day period and thereafter diligently 
prosecutes the same to completion within sixty (60) days after the receipt of notice of default 
from Authority. Authority shall not be required to provide such notice more than twice in any 
twelve (12) month period with respect to any material non-monetary defaults and after the 
second notice in any calendar year, any subsequent failure by Tenant during such 12-month 
period shall constitute an Event of Default hereunder, 

(c) a vacation or abandonment of the Premises for a continuous period in 
excess of five (5) business days; or 



H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



(d) an appointment of a receiver to take possession of all or substantially all of 
the assets of Tenant, or an assignment by Tenant for the benefit of creditors, or any action taken 
or suffered by Tenant under any insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, moratorium or other 
debtor relief act or statute, whether now existing or hereafter amended or enacted, if any such 
receiver, assignment or action is not released, discharged, dismissed or vacated within sixty (60) 
days. 

17.2. Remedies 

Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default Landlord shall have the following remedies, 
which shall not be exclusive but shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to any other 
remedies now or hereafter allowed by law or in equity: 

(a) Landlord may terminate Tenant's right to possession of the Premises at 
any time by written notice to Tenant. Tenant expressly acknowledges that in the absence of such 
written notice from Landlord, no other act of Landlord, including, but not limited to, its re-entry 
into the Premises, its efforts to relet the Premises, its reletting of the Premises for Tenant's 
account, its storage of Tenant's Personal Property and trade fixtures, its acceptance of keys to the 
Premises from Tenant, its appointment of a receiver, or its exercise of any other rights and 
remedies under this Section 17.2 or otherwise at law, shall constitute an acceptance of Tenant's 
surrender of the Premises or constitute a termination of this Lease or of Tenant's right to 
possession of the Premises. 

Upon such termination in writing of Tenant's right to possession of the Premises, 
this Lease shall terminate and Landlord shall be entitled to recover damages from Tenant as 
provided in California Civil Code Section 1951.2 or any other applicable existing or future Legal 
Requirement providing for recovery of damages for such breach, including but not limited to the 
following: 

(i) The reasonable cost of recovering the Premises; plus 

(ii) The reasonable cost of removing Tenant's Alterations, trade 
fixtures and improvements; plus 

(iii) All unpaid rent due or earned hereunder prior to the date of 
termination, less the proceeds of any reletting or any rental received from subtenants prior to the 
date of termination applied as provided in Section 17.2(b) below, together with interest at the 
Interest Rate, on such sums from the date such rent is due and payable until the date of the award 
of damages; plus 

(iv) The amount by which the rent which would be payable by Tenant 
hereunder, including Additional Charges under Section 4.3 above, as reasonably estimated by 
Landlord, from the date of termination until the date of the award of damages, exceeds the 
amount of such rental loss as Tenant proves could have been reasonably avoided, together with 
interest at the Interest Rate on such sums from the date such rent is due and payable until the date 
of the award of damages; plus 



j g H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



(v) The amount by which the rent which would be payable by Tenant 
hereunder, including Additional Charges under Section 4 3 above, as reasonably estimated by 
Landlord, for the remainder of the then term, after the date of the award of damages exceeds the 
amount such rental loss as Tenant proves could have been reasonably avoided, discounted at the 
discount rate published by the Federal Reserve bank of San Francisco for member banks at the 
time of the award plus one percent (1%), plus 

(vi) Such other amounts in addition to or in lieu of the foregoing as 
may be permitted from time to time by applicable law, including without limitation any other 
amount necessary to compensate Landlord for all the detriment proximately caused by Tenant's 
failure to perform its obligations under this Lease which in the ordinary course of things would 
be likely to result therefrom. 

(b) Landlord has the remedy described in California Civil Code 
Section 1951.4 (a landlord may continue the lease in effect after the tenant's breach and 
abandonment and recover rent as it becomes due, if the tenant has the right to sublet and assign 
subject only to reasonable limitations), and may continue this Lease in full force and effect and 
may enforce all of its rights and remedies under this Lease, including, but not limited to, the right 
to recover rent as it becomes due. After the occurrence of an Event of Default, Landlord may 
enter the Premises without terminating this Lease and sublet all or any part of the Premises for 
Tenant's account to any person, for such term (which may be a period beyond the remaining 
term of this Lease), at such rents and on such other terms and conditions as Landlord deems 
advisable. In the event of any such subletting, rents received by Landlord from such subletting 
shall be applied (i) first, to the payment of the costs of maintaining, preserving, altering and 
preparing the Premises for subletting, the other costs of subletting, including but not limited to 
brokers' commissions, attorneys' fees and expenses of removal of Tenant's Personal Property, 
trade fixtures and Alterations; (ii) second, to the payment of rent then due and payable 
hereunder; (iii) third, to the payment of future rent as the same may become due and payable 
hereunder; (iv) fourth, the balance, if any, shall be paid to Tenant upon (but not before) 
expiration of the term of this Lease. If the rents received by Landlord from such subletting, after 
application as provided above, are insufficient in any month to pay the rent due and payable 
hereunder for such month, Tenant shall pay such deficiency to Landlord monthly upon demand 
Notwithstanding any such subletting for Tenant's account without termination, Landlord may at 
any time thereafter, by written notice to Tenant, elect to terminate this Lease by virtue of a 
previous Event of Default. 

During the continuance of an Event of Default, for so long as Landlord does not 
terminate Tenant's right to possession of the Premises and subject to Section 16 (Assignment and 
Subletting) and the options granted to Landlord thereunder, Landlord shall not unreasonably 
withhold its consent to an assignment or sublease of Tenant's interest in the Premises or in this 
Lease. 

(c) During the continuance of an Event of Default, Landlord may enter the 
Premises without terminating this Lease and remove all Tenant's Personal Property, Alterations 
and trade fixtures from the Premises and store them at Tenant's risk and expense. If Landlord 
removes such property from the Premises and stores it at Tenant's risk and expense, and if 
Tenant fails to pay the cost of such removal and storage after written demand therefore and/or to 



20 H;URomani\Mosconecomml5 



pay any rent then due, then after the property has been stored for a period of thirty (30) days or 
more Landlord may sell such property at public or private sale, in the manner and at such times 
and places as Landlord deems commercially reasonable following reasonable notice to Tenant of 
the time and place of such sale. The proceeds of any such sale shall be applied first to the 
payment of the expenses for removal and storage of the property, the preparation for and the 
conducting of such sale, and for attorneys' fees and other legal expenses incurred by Landlord in 
connection therewith, and the balance shall be applied as provided in Section 17.2(b) above. 

Tenant hereby waives all claims for damages that may be caused by Landlord's 
re-entering and taking possession of the Premises or removing and storing Tenant's Personal 
Property pursuant to this Section 17.2, and Tenant shall indemnify, defend and hold Landlord 
harmless from and against any and all Claims resulting from any such act. No re-entry by 
Landlord shall constitute or be construed as a forcible entry by Landlord. 

(d) Landlord may require Tenant to remove any and all Alterations from the 
Premises or, if Tenant fails to do so within ten (10) days after Landlord's request, Landlord may 
do so at Tenant's expense. 

(e) Landlord may cure the Event of Default at Tenant's expense, it being 
understood that such performance shall not waive or cure the subject Event of Default. If 
Landlord pays any sum or incurs any expense in curing the Event of Default, Tenant shall 
reimburse Landlord upon demand for the amount of such payment or expense with interest at the 
Interest Rate from the date the sum is paid or the expense is incurred until Landlord is 
reimbursed by Tenant. Any amount due Landlord under this subsection shall constitute 
additional rent hereunder. 

17.3. Waiver of Redemption 

Tenant hereby waives, for itself and all persons claiming by and under Tenant, all rights 
and privileges which it might have under any present or future Legal Requirement to redeem the 
premises or to continue this Lease after being dispossessed or ejected from the Premises. 

17.4. Authority's Right to Cure Tenant's Defaults 

If Tenant defaults in the performance of any of its obligations under this Lease, then 
Authority may, at its sole option, remedy such default for Tenant's account and at Tenant's 
expense by providing Tenant with three (3) days' prior written or oral notice of Authority's 
intention to cure such default (except that no such prior notice shall be required in the event of an 
emergency as determined by Authority). Such action by Authority shall not be construed as a 
waiver of such default or any rights or remedies of Authority, and nothing herein shall imply any 
duty of Authority to do any act that Tenant is obligated to perform. Tenant shall pay to 
Authority upon demand, as additional rent, all costs, damages, expenses or liabilities incurred by 
Authority, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, in remedying or attempting 
to remedy such default. Tenant's obligations under this Section shall survive the termination of 
this Lease. 



21 



H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



18. WAIVER OF CLAIMS; INDEMNIFICATION 

18.1. Limitation on Authority's Liability; Waiver of Claims 

Authority shall not be responsible for or liable to Tenant, and Tenant hereby assumes the 
risk of, and waives and releases Authority and its Agents from all Claims (as defined below) for, 
any injury, loss or damage to any person or property in or about the Premises by or from any 
cause whatsoever including, without limitation, (i) any act or omission of persons occupying 
adjoining premises or any part of the Building adjacent to or connected with the Premises, 
(ii) theft, (Hi) explosion, fire, steam, oil, electricity, water, gas or rain, pollution or 
contamination, (iv) stopped, leaking or defective Building Systems, (v) Building defects, and 
(vi) any other acts, omissions or causes. Nothing in this Section shall relieve Authority from 
liability caused solely and directly by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Authority or 
its Agents, but Authority shall not be liable under any circumstances for any consequential, 
incidental or punitive damages. 

18.2. Tenant's Indemnity 

Tenant, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, shall indemnify, defend and 
hold harmless ("Indemnify") Authority including, but not limited to, all of its boards, 
commissions, departments, agencies and other subdivisions, including, without limitation, its 
Parking Authority, and all of its and their Agents, and their respective heirs, legal 
representatives, successors and assigns (individually and collectively, the "Indemnified Parties"), 
and each of them, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, costs, claims, judgments, 
settlements, damages, liens, fines, penalties and expenses, including, without limitation, direct 
and vicarious liability of every kind (collectively, "Claims"), incurred in connection with or 
arising in whole or in part from: (a) any accident, injury to or death of a person, including, 
without limitation, employees of Tenant, or loss of or damage to property, howsoever or by 
whomsoever caused, occurring in or about the Premises; (b) any default by Tenant in the 
observation or performance of any of the terms, covenants or conditions of this Lease to be 
observed or performed on Tenant's part; (c) the use or occupancy or manner of use or occupancy 
of the Premises by Tenant, its Agents or Invitees or any person or entity claiming through or 
under any of them; (d) the condition of the Premises; (e) any construction or other work 
undertaken by Tenant on the Premises whether before or during the Term of this Lease, or 
(f) any acts, omissions or negligence of Tenant, its Agents or Invitees, in, on or about the 
Premises or the Property; all regardless of the active or passive negligence of, and regardless of 
whether liability without fault is imposed or sought to be imposed on, the Indemnified Parties, 
except to the extent that such Indemnity is void or otherwise unenforceable under applicable law 
in effect on or validly retroactive to the date of this Lease and further except only such Claims as 
are caused exclusively by the willful misconduct or gross negligence of the Indemnified Parties 
The foregoing Indemnity shall include, without limitation, reasonable fees of attorneys, 
consultants and experts and related costs and Authority's costs of investigating any Claim. 
Tenant specifically acknowledges and agrees that it has an immediate and independent obligation 
to defend the Authority from any claim which actually or potentially falls within this indemnity 
provision even if such allegation is or may be groundless, fraudulent or false, which obligation 
arises at the time such claim is tendered to Tenant by Authority and continues at all times 
thereafter. Tenant's obligations under this Section shall survive the termination of the Lease 



22 H:\JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



,} 19. INSURANCE 

19.1. Tenant's Insurance 

(a) Tenant, at no cost to the Authority, shall procure and keep in effect at all 
times during the Term insurance as follows: 

(i) Comprehensive or commercial general liability insurance with 
limits not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence combined single limit for 
bodily injury and property damage, including contractual liability, independent contractors, 
sudden and accidental pollution, broad-form property damage, fire damage legal liability (of not 
less than Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000)), personal injury, products and 
completed operations, and explosion, collapse and underground (XCU). 

(ii) Rental interruption insurance in the amount of twelve (12) months' 
Base Rent, naming the Parking Authority of the City and County of San Francisco as the insured. 

(iii) Worker's Compensation Insurance with Employer's Liability 
Limits not less than $1,000,000 each accident. 

(iv) Comprehensive automobile liability insurance with limits not less 
than $1,000,000 each occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage, 
including owned and non-owned and hired vehicles, if Tenant uses automobiles in connection 
p with its use of the Premises. 

(v) Such other insurance as is generally required by commercial 
owners on buildings similar in size, character, age and location as the Building, as may change 
from time to time. 

(b) Should any of the required insurance be provided under a claims-made 
form, Tenant shall maintain such coverage continuously throughout the Term and, without lapse, 
for a period of three (3) years beyond the expiration or termination of this Lease, to the effect 
that, should occurrences during the Term give rise to claims made after expiration or termination 
of this Lease, such claims shall be covered by such claims-made policies. 

(c) Should any of the required insurance be provided under a form of 
coverage that includes a general annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or 
legal defense costs be included in such general annual aggregate limit, such general aggregate 
limit shall double the occurrence or claims limits specified above. 

(d) All liability insurance policies shall be endorsed to provide the following: 

(i) Name as additional insured the Parking Authority of the City and 
County of San Francisco, its officers, agents and employees. 

^ (ii) That such policies are primary insurance to any other insurance 

available to the additional insureds, with respect to any claims arising out of this Lease, and that 
insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. Such 



23 H \JRomanrtMosconecomml5 



policies shall also provide for severability of interests and that an act or omission of one of the 
named insureds which would void or otherwise reduce coverage shall not reduce or void the 
coverage as to any other insured, and shall afford coverage for all claims based on acts, 
omissions, injury or damage which occurred or arose (or the onset of which occurred or arose) in 
whole or in part during the policy period 

(e) Each insurance policy required pursuant to Section 19. 1(a) above shall be 
issued by an insurance company licensed in the State of California and with a general 
policyholders' rating of "A-" or better and a financial size ranking of "Class VIII" or higher in 
the most recent edition of Best's Insurance Guide. 

(f) All policies shall be endorsed to provide thirty (30) days' advance written 
notice to Authority of cancellation, non-renewal or reduction in coverage (or ten (10) days' 
advance written notice in case of nonpayment of premium), mailed to the addrcs3(es) for 
Authority set forth in the Basic Lease Information 

(g) Tenant shall deliver to Authority certificates of insurance in form and 
from insurers satisfactory to Authority, evidencing the coverage required hereunder, on or before 
the Commencement Date, together with complete copies of the policies promptly upon 
Authority's request, and Tenant shall provide Authority with certificates or policies thereafter at 
least thirty (30) days before the expiration dates of expiring policies In the event Tenant shall 
fail to procure such insurance, or to deliver such policies or certificates, Authority may procure, 
at its option, without waiving any rights or remedies which Landlord may have for Tenant's 
default hereunder, the same for the account of Tenant, and the cost thereof shall be paid to 
Authority within five (5) days after delivery to Tenant of bills therefore. 

(h) Upon Authority's request, Tenant and Authority shall periodically review 
the limits and types of insurance carried pursuant to this Section If the general commercial 
practice in the City and County of San Francisco is to carry liability insurance in an amount or 
coverage materially greater than the amount or coverage then being carried by Tenant for risks 
comparable to those associated with the Premises, then Tenant shall, at Authority's request, 
increase the amounts or coverage carried by Tenant to conform to such general commercial 
practice. 

(i) Tenant's compliance with the provisions of this Section shall in no way 
relieve or decrease Tenant's liability under Section 18 2 (Tenant's Indemnity), or any of 
Tenant's other obligations under this Lease. 

(j) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Lease, if any of the 
required insurance coverage lapses, this Lease shall terminate upon three (3) days notice to 
Tenant, unless Tenant renews the insurance coverage within notice period. 

19.2. Tenant's Personal Property 

Tenant shall be responsible, at no cost to the Authority, for separately insuring Tenant's 
Personal Property. 



24 H:\JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



19.3. Authority's Self Insurance 

Tenant acknowledges that Authority self-insures against casualty, property damage and 
public liability risks and agrees that Authority may at its sole election, but shall not be required 
to, carry any third party insurance with respect to the Building, the Premises or otherwise. 

19.4. Waiver of Subrogation 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Authority, in the event the 
Authority does not self-insure, and Tenant (each a "Waiving Party") each hereby waives any 
right of recovery against the other party and against any other party maintaining a policy of 
insurance covering the Building or the contents, or any portion thereof, for any loss or damage 
sustained by such other party with respect to the Building or the Premises or any portion thereof 
or the contents of the same or any operation therein, whether or not such loss is caused by the 
fault or negligence of such other party, to the extent (i) such loss or damage is actually recovered 
from valid and collectible insurance covering the Waiving Party, and (ii) the Waiving Party's 
insurance carrier agrees to its written v/aiver of right to recover such loss or damage. 

20. ACCESS BY AUTHORITY 

Authority reserves for itself and any of its designated Agents, the right to enter the 
Premises as follows: (i) on a regular basis without advance notice to supply any necessary or 
agreed-upon service to be provided by Authority hereunder; (ii) on an occasional basis, at all 
reasonable times after giving Tenant reasonable advance written or oral notice, to show the 
Premises to prospective tenants or other interested parties, to post notices of non-responsibility, 
to conduct any environmental audit of Tenant's use of the Premises, to repair, alter or improve 
any part of the Building, Building Systems or the Premises, and for any other lawful purpose; 
and (iii) on an emergency basis without notice whenever Authority believes that emergency 
access is required. Authority shall have the right to use any means that it deems proper to open 
doors in an emergency in order to obtain access to any part of the Premises, and any such entry 
shall not be construed or deemed to be a forcible or unlawful entry into or a detainer of, the 
Premises, or an eviction, actual or constructive, of Tenant from the Premises or any portion 
thereof. Tenant shall not alter any lock or install any new or additional locking devices without 
the prior written consent of Authority. All locks installed in the Premises (excluding Tenant's 
vaults, safes or special security areas, if any, designated by Tenant in writing to Authority) shall 
be by keyed to the Building master key system, and Authority shall at all times have a key with 
which to unlock all such doors. 

21. CERTIFICATES 

(a) Tenant's Certificates 

Tenant, at any time and from time to time upon not less than ten (10) days' prior 
notice from Authority, shall execute and deliver to Authority or to any party designated by 
Authority a certificate stating: (a) that Tenant has accepted the Premises, (b) the Commencement 
Date and Expiration Date of this Lease, (c) that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and 
effect (or, if there have been modifications, that the Lease is in full force and effect as modified 
and stating the modifications), (d) whether or not there are then existing any defenses against the 



25 H AJRomani\Mosconecomml5 



enforcement of any of Tenant's obligations hereunder (and if so, specifying the same), 
(e) whether or not there are any defaults then existing under this Lease (and if so specifying the 
same), (f) the dates, if any, to which the Base Rent and Additional Charges have been paid, and 
(g) any other information that may be required. 

(b) Authority's Certificates 

Authority, at any time and from time to time upon not less than ten (10) days' 
prior notice from Tenant, shall execute and deliver to Tenant or to any party designated by 
Tenant a certificate stating: (a) the Commencement Date and Expiration Date of this Lease, 
(b) that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or, if there have been modifications, 
that the Lease is in full force and effect as modified and stating the modifications),(c) whether or 
not there are any defaults then existing under this Lease (and if so specifying the same), (d) the 
dates, if any, to which the Base Rent and Additional Charges have been paid, and (f) any other 
information that may be required. 

22. SECURITY DEPOSIT 

Upon execution of this Lease, Tenant shall deposit with Landlord the sum specified as 
the security deposit in the Basic Lease Information (the "Security Deposit"), payable by a 
cashier's check or certified check, to secure Tenant's faithful performance of all terms, 
covenants and conditions of this Lease. Tenant agrees that Authority may (but shall not be 
required to) apply the Security Deposit in whole or in part to remedy any damage to the Premises 
caused by Tenant, its Agents or Invitees, or any failure of Tenant to perform any other terms, 
covenants or conditions contained herein, without waiving any of Authority's other rights and 
remedies hereunder or at law or in equity and without any obligation Should Authority use any 
portion of the Security Deposit to cure any default by Tenant hereunder, Tenant shall 
immediately replenish the security deposit to the original amount If the Base Rent is increased 
pursuant to any of the provisions of this Lease, Authority may require Tenant to increase the 
amount of the Security Deposit accordingly. Authority's obligations with respect to the Security 
Deposit are solely that of debtor and not trustee. Authority shall not be required to keep the 
Security Deposit separate from its general funds, and Tenant shall not be entitled to interest on 
the Security Deposit. The amount of the Security Deposit shall in no way limit the liabilities of 
Tenant under any provision of this Lease. 

23. SURRENDER OF PREMISES 

Upon the Expiration Date or other termination of the Term of this Lease, Tenant shall 
peaceably quit and surrender to Authority the Premises together with the Tenant Improvements 
and all Alterations approved by Authority in good order and condition, except for normal wear 
and tear after Tenant having made the last necessary repair required on its part under this Lease, 
and further except for any portion of the Premises condemned and any damage and destruction 
for which Tenant is not responsible hereunder. The Premises shall be surrendered free and clear 
of all liens and encumbrances other than liens and encumbrances existing as of the date of this 
Lease and any other encumbrances created by Authority. Immediately before the Expiration 
Date or other termination of this Lease, Tenant shall remove all of Tenant's Personal Property as 
provided in this Lease, and repair any damage resulting from the removal If such removal is not 
completed at the expiration or other termination of this Lease, Landlord may remove the same at 



26 H:\JRomaniAMosconecomml5 



Tenant's expense. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Lease, Authority can elect at 
any time prior to the Expiration Date or within five (5) days after termination of this Lease, to 
require Tenant to remove, at Tenant's sole expense, all or part of the Leasehold Improvements, 
Alterations or other improvements or equipment constructed or installed by or at the expense of 
Tenant. Tenant shall promptly remove such items and shall repair, at no cost to the Authority, 
any damage to the Premises or the Building resulting from such removal, or if Tenant fails to 
repair, Landlord may do so, at Tenant's expense. Tenant's obligations under this Section shall 
survive the Expiration Date or other termination of this Lease. Any items of Tenant's Personal 
Property remaining in the Premises after the Expiration Date or sooner termination of this Lease 
may, at Authority's option, be deemed abandoned and disposed of in accordance with 
Section 1980 et sea,, of the California Civil Code or in any other manner allowed by law. 

Concurrently with the surrender of the Premises, Tenant shall, if requested by Authority, 
execute, acknowledge and deliver to Authority a quitclaim deed to the Premises and any other 
instrument reasonably requested by Authority to evidence or otherwise effect the termination of 
Tenant's leasehold estate hereunder and to effect such transfer or vesting of title to the Tenant 
Improvements or other improvements or equipment which remain part of the Premises. 

24. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

24.1. Definitions 

As used herein, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: 

(a) "Environmental Laws" shall mean any present or future federal, state, 
local or administrative law, rule, regulation, order or requirement relating to Hazardous Material 
(including, without limitation, its use, handling, transportation, production, disposal, discharge or 
storage), or to health and safety, industrial hygiene or the environment, including, without 
limitation, soil, air and groundwater conditions. 

(b) "Hazardous Material" shall mean any material that, because of its 
quantity, concentration or physical or chemical characteristics, is at any time now or hereafter 
deemed by any federal, state or local governmental authority to pose a present or potential hazard 
to human health, welfare or safety or to the environment. Hazardous Material includes, without 
limitation, any material or substance defined as a "hazardous substance," or "pollutant" or 
"contaminant" pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA", also commonly known as the "Superfund" law), as amended, 
(42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq.) or pursuant to Section 25316 of the California Health & Safety 
Code; any "hazardous waste" listed pursuant to Section 25140 of the California Health & Safety 
Code; and petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof, natural gas or natural gas 
liquids. 

(c) "Investigate and Remediate" ("Investigation" and "Remediation") shall 
mean the undertaking of any activities to determine the nature and extent of Hazardous Material 
that may be located in, on, under or about the Property or that has been, are being or threaten to 
be Released into the environment, and to clean up, remove, contain, treat, stabilize, monitor or 
otherwise control such Hazardous Material 



27 H VJRomani\Mosconecomml5 



(d) "Release" when used with respect to Hazardous Material shall include any 
actual or imminent spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, 
injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into or inside the Premises, or in, on, under 
or about any other part of the Property or into the environment 

24.2. No Hazardous Materials 

Tenant covenants and agrees that neither Tenant nor any of its Agents or Invitees shall 
cause or permit any Hazardous Material to be brought upon, kept, used, stored, generated or 
disposed of in, on or about the Property, or transported to or from the Property, with the sole 
exception that Tenant may keep and use such substances in the Premises in such reasonably 
limited amounts as are customarily used for the use specified in the Basic Lease Information 
(such as general cleaning supplies, copy toner and other normal office [retail sales] supplies) so 
long as such storage and use are in compliance with ail applicable Environmental Laws at all 
times. Tenant shall give immediate written notice to Authority of (a) any action, proceeding or 
inquiry by any governmental authority (including, without limitation, the California State 
Department of Health Services, the State or any Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Bay 
Area Air Quality Management district or any local governmental entity) against Tenant with 
respect to the presence or Release or suspected presence or Release of Hazardous Material on the 
Premises, Building or Property or the migration thereof from or to other property, (b) all 
demands or claims made or threatened by any third party against Tenant or the Premises, 
Building or Property relating to any loss of injury resulting from any Hazardous Materials, 
(c) any Release of Hazardous Material on or about the Premises or any other part of the Property 
has occurred that may require any Investigation or Remediation, and (d) all matters of which 
Tenant is required to give notice pursuant to Section 25359.7 of the California Health and Safety 
Code. 

24.3. Tenant's Environmental Indemnity 

If Tenant breaches any of its obligations contained in this Section, or, if any act or 
omission of Tenant, its Agents or Invitees, results in any Release of Hazardous Material in, on, 
under or about the Premises or any other part of the Property, then, without limiting Tenant's 
Indemnity contained in Section 18.2, Tenant shall, on behalf of itself and its successors and 
assigns, Indemnify the Indemnified Parties, and each of them, from and against all Claims 
(including, without limitation, damages for decrease in value of the Premises or the Property, the 
loss or restriction of the use of rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the Premises or the 
Property and sums paid in settlement of claims, attorneys' fees, consultants' fees and experts' 
fees and costs) arising during or after the Term of this Lease and relating to such Release The 
foregoing Indemnity includes, without limitation, costs incurred in connection with activities 
undertaken to Investigate and Remediate Hazardous Material and to restore the Property to its 
prior condition, fines and penalties imposed by regulatory agencies, and any natural resource 
damages. Without limiting the foregoing, if Tenant or any of its Agents or Invitees, causes or 
permits the Release of any Hazardous Materials in, on, under or about the Premises or any other 
part of the Property, Tenant shall immediately and at no expense to Authority take any and all 
appropriate actions to return the Premises or the Property affected thereby to the condition 
existing prior to such Release and otherwise Investigate and Remediate the Release in 
accordance with all Environmental Laws. Tenant shall afford Authority a full opportunity to 



28 H:\JRomani\Mosconecofnml5 



participate in any discussions with governmental regulatory agencies regarding any settlement 
agreement, cleanup or abatement agreement, consent decree, or other compromise or proceeding 
involving Hazardous Material. 

24.4. Survival of Obligation 

Tenant's obligations under this Section 24 shall survive the Expiration Date or other 
termination of this Lease 

25. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 

25.1. Extension Option 

(a) Option to Extend Term 

Authority grants to Tenant a one-time option to extend the Term of this Lease as 
to the entire Premises only (the "Extension Option") for an additional five (5) years (the 
"Extension Term") commencing upon the Expiration Date upon the following terms and 
conditions. Tenant may exercise the Extension Option by providing written notice to Authority 
of its intent no sooner than three hundred sixty (360) days but not less than two hundred ten 
(210) days prior to the Expiration Date. Any such notice by Tenant shall be irrevocable by 
Tenant. If any event of default by Tenant is outstanding hereunder either at the time of Tenant's 
exercise of the Extension Option or at any time prior to the first day of the Extension Term (or if 
any event shall have occurred which with the giving of notice or the passage of time or both 
would constitute such a default), then Authority may elect by notice to Tenant to reject Tenant's 
exercise of the Extension Option, whereupon the Extension Option shall be null and void. 
Authority shall also have the right to void Tenant's Extension Option if Tenant has assigned its 
interest hereunder or sublet more than fifty percent (50%) of the Premises. 

(b) Base Rent and Other Terms 

If Tenant elects to exercise the Extension Option, then the lease for the Extension 
Term shall cover the entire Premises and shall be upon all of the terms, covenants and conditions 
of this Lease, except that Base Rent hereunder shall be adjusted to the Prevailing Market Rate as 
follows: 

(i) No later than one hundred fifty (1 50) days prior to commencement 
of the Extension Term, Authority shall notity Tenant in writing of Authority's determination 
made in good faith of the Prevailing Market Rate for the Premises to be used to calculate the 
Base Rent for the Extension Term. As used herein, the term "Prevailing Market Rate" for the 
Premises shall mean the rental and all other monetary payments and escalations, including, 
without limitation, consumer price indexing, that Authority could obtain from a third party 
desiring to lease the Premises for the Extension Term taking into account the age of the Building, 
the size, location and floor levels of the Premises, the quality of construction of the Building and 
the Premises, the services provided under the terms of this Lease, the rental then being obtained 
for new leases of space comparable to the Premises in the locality of the Building, and all other 
factors that would be relevant to a third party desiring to lease the Premises for the Extension 
Term in determining the rental such party would be willing to pay therefore; provided, however. 



99 H URomani\Mosconecomml5 



no allowance for the construction of tenant improvements shall be taken into account in 
determining Prevailing Market Rate, except that there shall be a reasonable allowance for 
repainting and floor covering replacement of the Premises as determined by Authority. 

(ii) Within fifteen (15) days after receipt of Authority's determination 
of the Prevailing Market Rate, Tenant shall notify Authority in writing either of (i) Tenant's 
acceptance of such determination, in which case such determination shall constitute the new 
Base Rent as of the commencement of the Extension Term, or (ii) Tenant's own good faith 
determination of the Prevailing Market Rate, including written justification for its determination. 

(iii) If Tenant provides Authority with its determination of the 
Prevailing Market Rate pursuant to Section 25. l(b)(ii) above, then within thirty (30) days 
following Tenant's notice to Authority, the parties shall attempt in good faith to meet no less 
than two (2) times, at a mutually agreeable time and place, to attempt to resolve in good faith any 
such disagreement as to the Prevailing Market Rate. The parties may, by an instrument in 
writing, mutually agree to extend such 45-day consultation period for a reasonably period to 
resolve their disagreement if the parties are negotiating in good faith and would be unable to 
resolve their differences within such 45-day period. 

(iv) If within such consultation period Authority and Tenant cannot 
reach agreement as to the Prevailing Market Rate, then promptly after the end of such 
consultation period Authority and Tenant shall submit the matter to arbitration by a single 
appraiser in accordance with the following procedure. 

(A) A ppointment of Appraisers . Each party shall appoint one 
(1) appraiser within thirty (30) days after the final date for agreement on the Prevailing Market 
Rate in accordance with Section 25. l(b)(iii) above. Upon selecting its appraiser, each party shall 
promptly notify the other party in writing of the name of the appraiser selected Each such 
appraiser shall be competent, licensed, qualified by training and experience in the City and 
County of San Francisco, and shall be a member in good standing of the Appraisal Institute and 
designated as a MAI, or, if the Appraisal Institute no longer exists, shall hold the senior 
professional designation awarded by the most prominent organization of appraisal professionals 
then awarding such professional designations. Each such MAI appraiser may have a prior 
working relationship with either or both of the parties, provided that such working relationship 
shall be disclosed to both parties. Without limiting the foregoing, each appraiser shall have at 
least ten (10) years' experience valuing commercial real estate in the City and County of 
San Francisco. If either party fails to appoint its appraiser within such 30-day period, the 
appraiser appointed by the other party shall individually determine the Prevailing Market Rate in 
accordance with the provisions hereof. 

(B) A ppraisal Instructions . Each appraiser will make an 
independent determination of the Prevailing Market Rate. The appraisers may share and have 
access to objective information in preparing their appraisals, but they will independently analyze 
the information their determination of the Prevailing Market Rate. Neither of the appraisers shall 
have access to the appraisal of the other (except for the sharing of objective information 
contained in such appraisals) until both of the appraisals are submitted in accordance with the 
provisions of this Section. Neither party shall communicate with the appraiser appointed by the 



30 H:\JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



other party regarding the instructions contained in this Section before the appraisers complete 
their appraisals. If either appraiser has questions regarding the instructions in this Section or the 
interpretation of the Lease, such appraiser shall use his or her own professional judgment and 
shall make clear all assumptions upon which his or her professional conclusions are based, 
including any supplemental instructions or interpretative guidance received from the party 
appointing such appraiser. There shall not be any arbitration or adjudication of the instructions 
to the appraisers contained in this Section. Each appraiser shall complete, sign and submit its 
written appraisal setting forth the Prevailing Market Rate (to the nearest half percentage point) to 
the parties within thirty (30) days after the appointment of the last of such appraisers. If the 
higher appraised Prevailing Market Rate is not more than one hundred ten percent (1 10%) of the 
lower appraised Prevailing Market Rate, then the Prevailing Market Rate shall be the average of 
such two (2) Prevailing Market Rate figures (to the nearest half percentage point). 

(C) " Baseball" Appraisal . If the higher appraised Prevailing 
Market Rate is more than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the lower appraised Prevailing 
Market Rate, then the first two appraisers shall agree upon and appoint an independent third 
appraiser within thirty (30) days after both of the first two (2) appraisals have been submitted to 
the parties, in accordance with the following procedure. The third appraiser shall have the 
minimum qualifications as required of an appraiser pursuant to paragraph (i) above, and shall 
also have experience acting as an third appraiser of disputes involving commercial real estate or 
real estate development opportunities, including ground leases and rental valuation. The two 
appraisers shall inform the parties of their appointment at or before the end of such 30-day 
appointment period. Each party shall have the opportunity to question the proposed third 
appraiser, in writing only, as to his or her qualifications, experience, past working relationships 
with the parties, and any other matters relevant to the appraisal set forth in the Lease. Either 
party may, by written notice to the other party and the two appraisers, raise a good faith 
objection to the selection of the third appraiser based on his or her failure to meet the 
requirements of this Section. In such event, if the two appraisers determine that the objection 
was made in good faith, the two appraisers shall promptly select another third appraiser, subject 
again to the same process for the raising of objections. If neither party raises a good faith 
objection to the appointment of the third appraiser within ten (10) days after notice of his or her 
appointment is given, each such party shall be deemed to have waived any issues or questions 
relating to the qualifications or independence of the third appraiser or any other matter relating to 
the selection of the third appraiser under the Lease. If for any reason the two appraisers do not 
appoint such third appraiser within such 30-day period (or within a reasonable period thereafter 
not to exceed twenty (20) days in the event a good faith objection is made as provided above), 
then either party may apply to the Writs and Receivers Department of the Superior Court of the 
State of California in and for the County of San Francisco for appointment of an third appraiser 
meeting the foregoing qualifications. If the court denies or otherwise refuses to act upon such 
application within sixty (60) days from the date on which the party first applies to the Court for 
appointment of the third appraiser, either party may apply to the American Arbitration 
Association, or any similar provider of professional commercial arbitration services, for 
appointment in accordance with the rules and procedures of such organization of an independent 
third appraiser meeting the foregoing qualifications. 

Such third appraiser shall consider the appraisals submitted by the 
first two appraisers as well as any other relevant written evidence which the third appraiser may 



3] H \JRomaniAMosconecomml5 



request of either or both of the first two appraisers. If either of the first two appraisers shall 
submit any such evidence to such third appraiser, it shall do so only at the request of the third 
appraiser and shall deliver a complete and accurate copy to the other party and the appraiser such 
party selected, at the same time it submits the same to the third appraiser. Neither party, and 
neither of the appraisers they appoint, shall conduct any ex parte communications with the third 
appraiser regarding the subject matter of the appraisal. Within thirty (30) days after his or her 
appointment, the third appraiser shall select the appraised Prevailing Market Rate determined by 
one or the other of the first two (2) appraisers that is the closer, in the opinion of the third 
appraiser, to the actual Prevailing Market Rate. The determination of the third appraiser shall be 
limited solely to the issue of deciding which of the appraisals of the two appraisers is closest to 
the actual Prevailing Market Rate. The third appraiser shall have no right to propose a middle 
ground or to modify either of the two appraisals, or any provision of the Lease. 

(D) Conclusive Determination . Except as provided in 
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1286.2 (as the same may be amended from time to 
time), the determination of the Prevailing Market Rate by the accepted appraisal shall be 
conclusive, final and binding on the parties. Neither of the first two (2) appraisers nor the third 
appraiser shall have any power to modify any of the provisions of the Lease and must base their 
decision on the definitions, standards, assumptions, instructions and other provisions contained 
in the Lease. Subject to the provisions of this Section, the parties will cooperate to provide all 
appropriate information to the appraisers and the third appraiser The appraisers (but not the 
third appraiser) can utilize the services of special experts, including experts to determine such 
things as property condition, market rates, leasing commissions, renovation costs and similar 
matters. The appraisers and the third appraiser will each produce their determination in writing, 
supported by the reasons for the determination. 

(E) Fees and Costs; Waiver . Each party shall bear the fees, 
costs and expenses of the appraiser it selects under Section 25. l(b)(iv)(A) and of any experts and 
consultants used by that appraiser. The fees, costs and expenses of the third appraiser under 
Section 25.1(b)(iv)(C) shall be shared equally by Landlord and Tenant Each party waives any 
claims against the appraiser appointed by the other party, and against the third appraiser, for 
negligence, malpractice or similar claims in the performance of the appraisals or arbitration 
contemplated by this Section. 

If, either by agreement of the parties or by the arbitration procedure provided 
herein, the Prevailing Market Rate is not finally determined by the commencement of the 
Extension Term, then Tenant shall pay the Prevailing Market Rate determined by Landlord until 
such time as the Prevailing Market Rate is finally determined by agreement of the parties or by 
the appraisal procedure set forth in this Section, at which time Authority shall refund any excess 
amount to Tenant or Tenant shall pay any shortage to Authority, as the case may be. No such 
delay in the determination of Prevailing Market Rate shall be deemed to constitute a waiver by 
either party of the adjustment of Prevailing Market Rate as provided in this Section. 



32 H AJRomani\Mosconecomml5 



^ 26. GENERAL PROVISIONS 

26.1. Notices 

Any notice given under this Lease shall be effective only if in writing and given by 
delivering the notice in person or by sending it first-class mail or certified mail with a return 
receipt requested or by overnight courier, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid, to: 
(a) Tenant (i) at Tenant's address set forth in the Basic Lease Information, if sent prior to 
Tenant's taking possession of the Premises, or (ii) at the Premises if sent on or subsequent to 
Tenant's taking possession of the Premises, or (iii) at any place where Tenant or any Agent of 
Tenant may be found if sent subsequent to Tenant's vacating, abandoning or surrendering the 
Premises; or (b) Authority at Authority's address set forth in the Basic Lease Information; or 
(c) to such other address as either Authority or Tenant may designate as its new address for such 
purpose by notice given to the other in accordance with the provisions of this Section at least ten 
(10) days prior to the effective date of such change. Any notice hereunder shall be deemed to 
have been given two (2) days after the date when it is mailed if sent by first class or certified 
mail, one day after the date it is made if sent by overnight courier, or upon the date personal 
delivery is made. For convenience of the parties, copies of notices may also be given be 
telefacsimile to the telephone number set forth in the Basic Lease Information or such other 
number as may be provided from time to time; however, neither party may give official or 
binding notice by facsimile. Tenant shall promptly provide Authority with copies of any and all 
notices received regarding any alleged violation of laws or insurance requirements or any alleged 
^ unsafe condition or practice. 

26.2. No Implied Waiver 

No failure by Authority to insist upon the strict performance of any obligation of Tenant 
under this Lease or to exercise any right, power or remedy arising out of a breach thereof, 
irrespective of the length of time for which such failure continues, no acceptance of full or partial 
Base Rent or Additional Charges during the continuance of any such breach, and no acceptance 

» of the keys to or possession of the Premises prior to the expiration of the Term by any Agent of 

Authority, shall constitute a waiver of such breach or of Authority's right to demand strict 
compliance with such term, covenant or condition or operate as a surrender of this Lease. No 
express written waiver of any default or the performance of any provision hereof shall affect any 
other default or performance, or cover any other period of time, other than the default, 
performance or period of time specified in such express waiver. One or more written waivers of 
a default or the performance of any provision hereof shall not be deemed to be a waiver of a 
subsequent default or performance. Any consent by Authority hereunder shall not relieve Tenant 
of any obligation to secure the consent of Authority in any other or future instance under the 
terms of this Lease. 

26.3. Amendments 

Neither this Lease nor any term or provisions hereof may be changed, waived, discharged 
or terminated, except by a written instrument signed by both parties hereto. Whenever an 
\ amendment, waiver, notice, or other instrument or document is to executed by or on behalf of 
Authority, the Director of Property of the City, or his or her designee, shall be authorized to 



22 H:\JRornani\Mosconecomml5 



execute such instrument on behalf of Authority, except as otherwise provided by applicable law, 
including City's Charter. 

26.4. Authority 

If Tenant signs as a corporation or a partnership, each of the persons executing this Lease 
on behalf of Tenant does hereby covenant and warrant that Tenant is a duly authorized and 
existing entity, that Tenant has and is qualified to do business in California, that Tenant has full 
right and authority to enter into this Lease, and that each and all of the persons signing on behalf 
of Tenant are authorized to do so. Upon Authority's request, Tenant shall provide Authority 
with evidence reasonably satisfactory to Authority confirming the foregoing representations and 
warranties. 

26.5. Parties and Their Agents; Approvals 

The words "Authority", "City" and "Tenant" as used herein shall include the plural as 
well as the singular. If there is more than one Tenant, the obligations and liabilities under this 
Lease imposed on Tenant shall be joint and several. As used herein, the term "Agents" when 
used with respect to either party shall include the agents, employees, officers, contractors and 
representatives of such party, and the term "Invitees" when used with respect to Tenant shall 
include the clients, customers, invitees, guests, licensees, assignees or subtenants of Tenant. All 
approvals, consents or other determinations permitted or required by Authority hereunder shall 
be made by or through City's Director of Property unless otherwise provided in this Lease, 
subject to applicable law. 

26.6. Interpretation of Lease 

The captions preceding the articles and sections of this Lease and in the table of contents 
have been inserted for convenience of reference only and such captions shall in no way define or 
limit the scope or intent of any provision of this Lease. This Lease has been negotiated at arm's 
length and between persons sophisticated and knowledgeable in the matters dealt with herein and 
shall be interpreted to achieve the intents and purposes of the parties, without any presumption 
against the party responsible for drafting any part of this Lease Provisions in this Lease relating 
to number of days shall be calendar days, unless otherwise specified, provided that if the last day 
of any period to give notice, reply to a notice or to undertake any other action occurs on a 
Saturday, Sunday or a bank or City holiday, then the last day for undertaking the action or giving 
or replying to the notice shall be the next succeeding business day Use of the word "including" 
or similar words shall not be construed to limit any general term, statement or other matter in this 
Lease, whether or not language of non-limitation, such as "without limitation" or similar words, 
are used. 

26.7. Successors and Assigns 

Subject to the provisions of this Lease relating to Assignment and Subletting, the terms, 
covenants and conditions contained in this Lease shall bind and inure to the benefit of Authority 
and Tenant and, except as otherwise provided herein, their personal representatives and 
successors and assigns; provided, however, that upon any sale, assignment or transfer by 
Authority named herein (or by any subsequent landlord) of its interest in the Building as owner 



34 H:\JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



) 



or lessee, including any transfer by operation of law, Authority(or any subsequent landlord) shall 
be relieved from all subsequent obligations and liabilities arising under this Lease subsequent to 
such sale, assignment or transfer. 

26.8. Brokers 

Neither party has had any contact or dealings regarding the leasing of the Premises, or 
any communication in connection therewith, through any licensed real estate broker or other 
person who could claim a right to a commission or finder's fee in connection with the lease 
contemplated herein except as identified in the Basic Lease Information, whose commission, if 
any is due, shall be paid pursuant to a separate written agreement between such broker and the 
party through which such broker contracted. In the event that any broker or finder perfects a 
claim for a commission or finder's fee based upon any such contact, dealings or communication, 
the party through whom the broker or finder makes a claim shall be responsible for such 
commission or fee and shall Indemnify the other party from any and all Claims incurred by the 
indemnified party in defending against the same. The provisions of this Section shall survive 
any termination of this Lease. 

26.9. Severability 

If any provision of this Lease or the application thereof to any person, entity or 
circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease, or the 
application of such provision to persons, entities or circumstances other than those as to which it 
is invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this Lease 
shall be valid and be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 

26.10. Governing Law 

This Lease shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of 
California. 

26.11. Entire Agreement 

This instrument, including the exhibits hereto, which are made a part of this Lease, 
contains the entire agreement between the parties and all prior written or oral negotiations, 
understandings and agreements are merged herein. The parties further intend that this Lease 
shall constitute the complete and exclusive statement of its terms and that no extrinsic evidence 
whatsoever (including prior drafts hereof and changes therefrom) may be introduced in any 
judicial, administrative or other legal proceeding involving this Lease. Tenant hereby 
acknowledges that neither Authority nor Authority's Agents have made any representations or 
warranties with respect to the Premises, the Building or this Lease except as expressly set forth 
herein, and no rights, easements or licenses are or shall be acquired by Tenant bv implication or 
otherwise unless expressly set forth herein. 

26.12. Attorneys' Fees 

In the event that either Authority or Tenant fails to perform any of its obligations under 
this Lease or in the event a dispute arises concerning the meaning or interpretation of any 



25 H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



provision of this Lease, the defaulting party or the party not prevailing in such dispute, as the 
case may be, shall pay any and all costs and expenses incurred by the other party in enforcing or 
establishing its rights hereunder (whether or not such action is prosecuted to judgment), 
including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. For purposes of this 
Lease, reasonable fees of attorneys of City's Office of the City Attorney shall be based on the 
fees regularly charged by private attorneys with the equivalent number of years of experience in 
the subject matter area of the law for which the City Attorney's services were rendered who 
practice in the City of San Francisco in law firms with approximately the same number of 
attorneys as employed by the Office of the City Attorney. 

26.13. Holding Over 

Any holding over after the expiration of the Term with the express consent of Authority 
shall be construed to automatically extend the Term of this Lease on a month-to-month basis at a 
Base Rent equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the latest Base Rent payable by Tenant 
hereunder prior to such expiration, together with an amount estimated by Authority for the 
monthly Additional Charges payable under this Lease, and shall otherwise be on the terms and 
conditions herein specified so far as applicable (except for those pertaining to the Term and any 
Extension Options). Any holding over without Authority's consent shall constitute a default by 
Tenant and entitle Authority to exercise any or all of its remedies as provided herein, 
notwithstanding that Authority may elect to accept one or more payments of Rent, and whether 
or not such amounts are at the holdover rate specified above or the rate in effect at the end of the 
Term of the Lease. 

26.14. Time of Essence 

Time is of the essence with respect to all provisions of this Lease in which a definite time 
for performance is specified. 

26.15. Cumulative Remedies 

All rights and remedies of either party hereto set forth in this Lease shall be cumulative, 
except as may otherwise be provided herein. 

26.16. Survival of Indemnities 

Termination of this Lease shall not affect the right of either party to enforce any and all 
indemnities and representations and warranties given or made to the other party under this Lease, 
nor shall it affect any provision of this Lease that expressly states it shall survive termination 
hereof. 

26.17. Signs 

Tenant agrees that it will not erect or maintain, or permit to be erected or maintained, 
any signs, notices or graphics upon or about the Premises which are visible in or from public 
corridors or other portions of any common areas of the Building or from the exterior of the 
Premises, without Authority's prior written consent, which Authority may withhold or grant in 
its sole discretion. 



36 H:URomani\Mosconecomml5 



26.18. Relationship of the Parties 

Authority is not, and none of the provisions in this Lease shall be deemed to render 
Authority, a partner in Tenant's business, or joint venturer or member in any joint enterprise with 
Tenant. Neither party shall act as the agent of the other party in any respect hereunder. This 
Lease is not intended nor shall it be construed to create any third party beneficiary rights in any 
third party, unless otherwise expressly provided. 

26.19. Light and Air 

Tenant covenants and agrees that no diminution of light, air or view by any structure that 
may hereafter be erected (whether or not by Authority) shall entitle Tenant to any reduction of 
the Base Rent or Additional Charges under this Lease, result in any liability of Authority to 
Tenant, or in any other way affect this Lease or Tenant's obligations hereunder. 

26.20. No Recording 

Tenant shall not record this Lease or any memorandum hereof in the public records. 

26.21. Options Personal 

Any right or option to extend the Term of this Lease or renew this Lease is personal to 
the original Tenant and may be exercised only by the original Tenant while occupying the 
Premises who does so without the intent of thereafter making any Assignment of this Lease or 
Subletting of the Premises, or any portion thereof, and may not be exercised by or assigned, 
voluntarily or involuntarily, by or to any person or entity other than Tenant. The options, if any, 
herein granted to Tenant are not assignable separate and apart from this Lease, nor may any 
option be separated from this Lease in any manner, either by reservation or otherwise. 

26.22. Public Transit Information 

Tenant shall establish and carry on during the Term a program to encourage maximum 
use of public transportation by personnel of Tenant employed on the Premises, including, 
without limitation, the distribution to such employees of written materials explaining the 
convenience and availability of public transportation facilities adjacent or proximate to the 
Building and encouraging use of such facilities, all at Tenant's sole expense. 

26.23. Taxes, Assessments, Licenses, Permit Fees and Liens 

(a) Tenant recognizes and understands that this Lease may create a possessory interest 
subject to property taxation and that Tenant may be subject to the payment of property taxes 
levied on such interest, (b) Tenant agrees to pay taxes of any kind, including possessory interest 
taxes, that may be lawfully assessed on the leasehold interest hereby created ana to pay all other 
taxes, excises, licenses, permit charges and assessments based on Tenant's usage of the Premises 
that may be imposed upon Tenant by law, all of which shall be paid when the same become due 
and payable and before delinquency, (c) Tenant agrees not to allow or suffer a lien for any such 
taxes to be imposed upon the Premises or upon any equipment or property located thereon 
without promptly discharging the same, provided that Tenant, if so desiring, may have 



37 H \JRomaniAMosconecomml5 



reasonable opportunity to contest the validity of the same, (d) San Francisco Administrative 
Code Sections 23.6-1 and 23.6-2 require that the City and County of San Francisco report certain 
information relating to this Lease, and any renewals thereof, to the County Assessor within sixty 
(60) days after any such transaction, and that Tenant report certain information relating to any 
assignment of or sublease under this lease to the County Assessor within sixty (60) days after 
such assignment or sublease transaction. Tenant agrees to provide such information as may be 
requested by the Authority to enable the Authority to comply with this requirement 

26.24. Non-Liability of Authority Officials, Employees and Agents 

No elective or appointive board, commission, member, officer, employee or other Agent 
of Authority shall be personally liable to Tenant, its successors and assigns, in the event of any 
default or breach by Authority or for any amount which may become due to Tenant, its 
successors and assigns, or for any obligation of Authority under this Agreement. 

26.25. Wages and Working Conditions 

With respect to the construction of the Tenant Improvements and any Alterations, any 
employee performing services for Tenant shall be paid not less than the highest prevailing rate of 
wages as required by Section A7.204 of the City and County of San Francisco Charter and 
Sections 6.33 through 6.45 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, shall be subject to the 
same hours and working conditions, and shall receive the same benefits as in each case are 
provided for similar work performed in San Francisco, California Tenant shall require any 
contractor to provide, and shall deliver to Authority every two weeks during any construction 
period, certified payroll reports with respect to all persons performing labor in the construction 
of the Tenant Improvement Work or any Alterations on the Premises. 

26.26. Non-Discrimination in Authority Contracts and Benefits Ordinance 

(a) Covenant Not to Discriminate 

In the performance of this Lease, Tenant covenants and agrees not to discriminate 
on the basis of the fact or perception of a person's race, color, creed, religion, national origin, 
ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, domestic partner status, marital status, 
disability or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or HIV status (AIDS/rTIV status) against 
any employee of, any Authority employee working with, or applicant for employment with 
Tenant, in any of Tenant's operations within the United States, or against any person seeking 
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, services, or membership in all business, 
social, or other establishments or organizations operated by Tenant. 

(b) Subleases and Other Subcontracts 

Tenant shall include in all Subleases and other subcontracts relating to the 
Premises a non-discrimination clause applicable to such Subtenant or other subcontractor in 
substantially the form of subsection (a) above. In addition, Tenant shall incorporate by reference 
in all subleases and other subcontracts the provisions of Sections 12B 2(a), 12B 2(c)-(k), and 
12C.3 of the San Francisco Administrative Code and shall require all subtenants and other 



38 H:\JRofnani\Mosconecomml5 



subcontractors to comply with such provisions. Tenant's failure to comply with the obligations 
in this subsection shall constitute a material breach of this Lease. 

(c) Non-Discrimination in Benefits 

Tenant does not as of the date of this Lease and will not during the Term, in any 
of its operations or in San Francisco or with respect to its operations under this Lease elsewhere 
within the United States, discriminate in the provision of bereavement leave, family medical 
leave, health benefits, membership or membership discounts, moving expenses, pension and 
retirement benefits or travel benefits, as well as any benefits other than the benefits specified 
above, between employees with domestic partners and employees with spouses, and/or between 
the domestic partners and spouses of such employees, where the domestic partnership has been 
registered with a governmental entity pursuant to state or local law authorizing such registration, 
subject to the conditions set forth in Section 12B.2(b, of the San Francisco Administrative Code. 

(d) HRC Form 

As a condition to this Lease, Tenant shall execute the "Chapter 12B Declaration: 
Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits" form (Form HRC-12B-101) with supporting 
documentation and secure the approval of the form by the San Francisco Human Rights 
Commission. Tenant hereby represents that prior to execution of this Lease, (i) Tenant executed 
and submitted to the HRC Form HRC-12B-101 with supporting documentation, and (ii) the HRC 
approved such form. 

(e) Incorporation of Administrative Code Provisions by Reference 

The provisions of Chapters 12B and 12C of the San Francisco Administrative 
Code relating to non-discrimination by parties contracting for the lease of Authority property are 
incorporated in this Section by reference and made a part of this Agreement as though fully set 
forth herein. Tenant shall comply fully with and be bound by all of the provisions that apply to 
this Lease under such Chapters of the Administrative Code, including but not limited to the 
remedies provided in such Chapters. Without limiting the foregoing, Tenant understands that 
pursuant to Section 12B.2(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code, a penalty of $50 for 
each person for each calendar day during which such person was discriminated against in 
violation of the provisions of this Lease may be assessed against Tenant and/or deducted from 
any payments due Tenant. 

26.27. No Relocation Assistance; Waiver of Claims 

Tenant acknowledges that it will not be a displaced person at the time this Lease is 
terminated or expires by its own terms, and Tenant fully RELEASES, WAIVES AND 
DISCHARGES forever any and all Claims against, and covenants not to sue Authority, City, and 
their applicable departments, commissions, officers, directors and employees, and all persons 
acting by, through or under each of them, under any laws, including, without limitation, any and 
all claims for relocation benefits or assistance from Authority under federal and state relocation 
assistance laws (including, but not limited to, California Government Code Section 7260 et seq ). 
except as otherwise specifically provided in this Lease with respect to a Taking. 



39 H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



26.28. Conflicts of Interest 

Tenant states that it is familiar with the provisions of Section C8. 105 of the San Francisco 
Charter and certifies that it knows of no facts which would constitute a violation of such 
provisions. Tenant further certifies that it has made a complete disclosure to the Authority of all 
facts bearing on any possible interests, direct or indirect, which Tenant believes any officer or 
employee of the Authority presently has or will have in this Lease or in the performance thereof 
or in any portion of the profits thereof. Willful failure by Tenant to make such disclosure, if any, 
shall constitute grounds for the Authority's termination and cancellation of this Lease 

26.29. Charter Provisions 

This Lease is governed by and subject to the provisions of the Charter of the City and 
County of San Francisco. 

26.30. Drug-Free Workplace 

Tenant acknowledges that pursuant to the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1989, the 
unlawful manufacture, distribution, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited on 
Authority premises. Tenant agrees that any violation of this prohibition by Tenant, its Agents or 
assigns shall be deemed a material breach of this Lease ] 

26.31. Counterparts 

This Lease may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed 
an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument 

26.32. Effective Date 

This Lease shall become effective on the date upon which (i) City's Board of Supervisors 
and the Mayor, in their sole and absolute discretion, adopt a resolution approving this Lease in 
accordance with all applicable laws and (ii)this Lease is duly executed and delivered by the 
parties hereto. 

26.33. Sunshine Ordinance 

In accordance with Section 67 24(e) of the San Francisco Administrative Code, contracts, 
contractors' bids, leases, agreements, responses to Requests for Proposals, and all other records 
of communications between Authority and persons or firms seeking contracts will be open to 
inspection immediately after a contract has been awarded. Nothing in this provision requires the 
disclosure of a private person's or organization's net worth or other proprietary financial data 
submitted for qualification for a contract, lease, agreement or other benefit until and unless that 
person or organization is awarded the contract, lease, agreement or benefit. Information 
provided which is covered by this Section will be made available to the public upon request. 



40 H.VJRomani\Mosconecomml5 



NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN THIS 
LEASE, TENANT ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE 
OF THE PARKING AUTHORITY HAS AUTHORITY TO COMMIT THE PARKING 
AUTHORITY TO THIS LEASE UNLESS AND UNTIL CITY'S BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
SHALL HAVE DULY ADOPTED A RESOLUTION APPROVING THIS LEASE AND 
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY. THEREFORE, ANY 
OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES OF THE PARKING AUTHORITY HEREUNDER ARE 
CONTINGENT UPON ADOPTION OF SUCH A RESOLUTION, AND THIS LEASE SHALL 
BE NULL AND VOID IF CITY'S MAYOR AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DO NOT 
APPROVE THIS LEASE, IN THEIR RESPECTTVE SOLE 



) 



4] H \JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



DISCRETION. APPROVAL OF THIS LEASE BY ANY COMMISSIO OF THE PARKING 
AUTHORITY SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO IMPLY THAT SUCH RESOLUTION WILL 
BE ENACTED, NOR WILL ANY SUCH APPROVAL CREATE ANY BINDING 
OBLIGATIONS ON THE PARKING AUTHORITY. 

Authority and Tenant have executed this Lease, in triplicate, as of the date first written above 

TENANT : 

AZAD H NEJAD and AZADEH ASLAN- 

NEJAD, dba 

a California corporation 



By: 
Its: 

By: 

Its: 






L ANDLORD : 

PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND 
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 
a public body corporate and politic 



♦ 



RECOMMENDED: 



Director of Property 

APPROVED AS TO FORM: 
LOUISE H. RENNE, City Attorney 

By 



Deputy City Attorney 



Director, Parking Authority 



42 



H:\JRomani\Mosconecomml5 



HOWARD STREET 



x_^ 






o 




CLEMENTINA STREET 



7* 



Vxh\hit A-1 




-i- ;v. ; a. i ^ 




EXIT CURB 



ENTRY CURB 



l/vhihit A_l 



EXHIBIT B 



[Date] 



Mr. Anthony J. DeLucchi 

Director of Property 

Real Estate Department 

City and County of San Francisco 

25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 

San Francisco, C A 94102 

RE: Acknowledgement of Commencement Date, Lease Between 

Azad H. Nejad and Azadeh Aslan-Nejad, dba (Tenant), 

and the PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF 
SAN FRANCISCO (Landlord), for premises known as commercial space nos 
6 & 7 located at 247-249 Third Street, San Francisco, California 94103. 

Dear Mr. DeLucchi. 

This letter will confirm that for all purposes of the Lease, the Commencement Date (as 
defined in Section 3 2 of the Lease) is , 2000. 

Please acknowledge your acceptance of this letter by signing and returning a copy of this 
letter. 

Very truly yours. 






By_ 
Title 



Accepted and Agreed: 
By: 



Director of Property 
Dated: 



B-1 

H:\Mosconecomml5 doc 



P EXHIBIT C 

APPROVED TENANT'S PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 
TENANT TO PROVIDE COPY OF PLANS 






C-l H:\Mosconccomml5.doc 



File No. 000226 Committee Item No.. 

Board Item No. 



COMMITTEE/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST* 
Committee Finance and Labor Date 2/9/00 
Board of Supervisors Meeting Date 

Cmte Board 

□ □ Motion 

□ □ Resolution 

□ □ Ordinance 

□ □ Legislative Digest 

EQ □ Budget Analyst Report 

□ □ Legislative Analyst Report 

□ □ Department/Agency Cover Letter and/or Report 

□ □ Public Correspondence 

□ □ Exceeds 20 pages; see file to review 

□ □ Sent to Board in advance of agenda preparation; 

available for review at reception desk, City Hall, Room 244 

□ □ Other 

0H □ Introduction Form 

□ □ 

□ □ 

□ □ 

(Use back side if additional space is needed) 

Late Agenda Items (documents received too late for distribution to the 
Committee Members) 



□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 


□ 



Completed by: Gail Johnson Date 2/7/00 

Date 



*This list reflects the explanatory documents provided 



Packet Contents Checklist 2/3/r>0 



Cmte Board 



a 

□ 
□ 
a 
a 
a 
a 
□ 
a 
a 
a 
a 

D 

a 
a 
a 
a 
a 
□ 
a 
a 
a 
a 
a 
a 
a 

D 

a 
a 
a 
a 
a 
a 
a 
a 



a 
a 

a 

□ 

a 

□ 

□ 

a 

□ 

□ 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

□ 

a 

a 

□ 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

□ 



• 



Packet Contents Checklist 



I? 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 8 - File 00-0226 



Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) - Public Health and 
Community Health Network. 

Item: This is a hearing to consider the following issues: 

1. A review of the financial condition of the Department Public 
Health for FY 1999-2000, including projections of current year 
revenues, expenditures and required General Fund support; 

2. Whether a supplemental appropriation will be needed by DPH 
for FY 1999-2000 due to revenue shortfalls and expenditures over 
budget and, if so, projections of the amount of such an 
appropriation; 

3. The impact of the Department's financial condition on Public 
Health and Community Health Network programs, including a 
status report on the Department's hiring freeze, current staffing 
levels, planned or implemented reductions in service and delays in 
implementing planned programs. The discussion of the impact of 
DPH's financial condition should also include UCSF contracted 
programs at DPH facilities; 

4. A review of progress implementing additional funding 
allocations made by the Board of Supervisors to the DPH for 
improvements to service in the Pharmacy, including proposed 
increases in staffing and capital improvements; 

5. A review of San Francisco General Hospital's emergency room 
caseload and wait times since the recent closure of Mt. Zion's 
emergency room; 

6. A review of capital and maintenance expenditures made during 
FY 1999-2000, the current condition of the physical plant at San 
Francisco General Hospital and the Community Health Network, 
and the Department's entire list of pending or proposed capital 
expenditures; and 

7. Projections for DPH's FY 2000-2001 budget. 

Description: 1. Financial condition of the Department Public Health for 
Fiscal Year 1999-2000 






The Department of Public Health's six month Revenue and 
Expenditure report for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 is shown as 
Attachment 1 to this report. That report, which was presented to 
the Public Health Commission on February 1, 2000, provides a 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 

projection of a year end deficit of $15,435,508 for all Department of 
Public Health divisions, including San Francisco General Hospital 
(SFGH) and Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) based on revenues and 
expenditures during the first six months of the Fiscal Year. 

In summary, DPH is projecting a revenue shortfall of $11,308,106 
and expenditures exceeding budget of $4, 127,402 for a total overall 
projected budget deficit of $15,435,508. 

The table below provides (a) a summary of projected actual 
revenues and expenditures in comparison to budgeted revenues and 
expenditures, and (b) projected budget deficits for each division 
within the Department of Public Health. 



« 



Projected Department of Public Health FY 1999-2000 

Revenues and Expenditures 







REVENUES 




EXPENDITURES 




Division 


Revised 
Budget 


Current 
Projection 


Surplus/ 
(Deficit) 


Revised 
Budget 


Current 
Projection 


Surplus/ 
(Deficit) 


Projected 
Surplus/ 
(Deficit) A 


Community Health 
Network 


$455,196,591 

122.945,241 

34,701,247 

3,948,359 

21.025.462 

$ 637,816,900 

18,104,231 

54,508,107 

139,855,591 

53.629.943 

$ 266,097,872 

$ 903,914,772 


$445,908,184 

124,786,825 

31,231,781 

3,862,423 

21.025.672 

$ 626,814,885 

18.147,135 
54,995,653 
138,655,591 

53.993.402 
$265,791,781 

$ 892.606.666 


$ (9.288.407) 

l.S41,584 

(3.469,466) 

(85,936) 

210 


$455,196,591 

122,945.241 

34,701,247 

3,948,359 

21.025.462 

$637,816,900 

18.104.231 

54.508,107 

139.855,591 

53.629.943 

$ 266.097.872 

S 903.914.772 


$455,511,973 

125,611,384 

35.356.559 

3,934,291 

22.137.603 

$642,551,810 

17,814,190 

54.162,326 

140,312,046 

53.201.802 

$ 265.490 .364 

S 908.042.174 


$(315,382) 

(2,666,143) 

(655,312) 

14,068 

(1.112.141> 

$(4,734,910) 

290,041 

345,781 
(456.455) 

428.141 


~t 


SFGH 

Laguna Honda 
Primary Care 
Health at Home 
Forensics 


$ (9.603.789) 
(824,559) 
(4,12 

(71.868) 

(1.111.931) 

$(15,736,925) 

332.945 

(1.656.455) 

~91.600 


Subtotal 

Public Health 

Central Admin 
Community Health 
Mental Health 
Substance Abuse 


$(11,002,015) 

42,904 

487,546 

(1.200,000) 

363.459 


Subtotal 
Total DPH 


$ (306.091) 
$(11,308,106) 


$ 607.508 
S (4.127.402) 


S 301.417 
S (15.435.508) 



As noted in Attachment 1, in response to the projected deficit for FY 
1999-200, DPH staff are proposing a plan to reduce expenditures 
and recognize increased revenues totaling $11,430,545. If approved, 
this plan will reduce the projected deficit to an estimated 
$4,004,963 as of June 30, 2000, the end of the Fiscal Year. This 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 

DPH plan is as follows according to Ms. Monique Zmuda, Chief 
Financial Officer of the DPH: 

Additional revenues in the estimated amount of $6,200,000 
including: 

• State Realignment revenue based on estimates provided by the 
Controller ($2,000,000); 

• SB90 revenues held in reserve by the Controller ($3,800,000); 
and 

• Medi-Cal revenues reimbursed for administrative activities 
($400,000). 

Expenditure savings of approximately $5,200,000 including: 

• Personnel savings resulting from a freeze on vacant positions 
($1,300,000 in salaries and benefits); 

• Materials and supplies savings ($1,300,000); 

• Contractual services savings from the delayed start up of new 
programs ($1,200,000); 

• Capital and equipment savings ($300,000); and 

• Other operating expenditure savings ($1,100,000). 

Attachment 1 also includes separate discussions of projected 
deficits and adjustments for each separate DPH division. 

The table on the following page summarizes the DPH deficit 
reduction plan for each division. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



Projected Department of Public Health FY 1999-2000 
Deficit Reduction Plan 



Division 



Projected 
Surplus/ 
(Deficit) 



Planned 
Increased 
Revenues 



Planned 
Expenditure 
Reductions 



Community Health Network 



Remaining 
Surplus/ 
(Deficit) 



SFGH 

Laguna Honda 
Primary Care 
Health at Home 
Forensics 
Subtotal 

Public Health 


$ (9,603,789) 

(824,559) 

(4,124,778) 

(71,868) 

(1.111.931) 

$(15,736,925) 

S 332,945 
833327 

(1,656,455) 

791.600 

$301,417 

$(15,435,508) 


S 1,200,000 
400,000 


5 2,325,650 

824,559 

521,895 

71,868 

310.118 

S4,054,090 

5 400,000 

200,000 

456.455 

120.000 

S 1,176,455 

$ 5,230,545 


S (6.078,139) 

(3.202.883) 

(801.813) 
% (10,082,835) 

S 732,945 

i,033.::~ 

3,400,000 

911.600 

$ 6.077,872 

S (4.004.963) 


$ 1,600,000 

s 

4.600.000 


Central Admin 
Community Health 
Mental Health 
Substance Abuse 
Subtotal 

Total DPH 


S 4,600,000 
S 6.200,000 



2. A supplemental appropriation will likely be needed by 
DPH for FY 1999-2000 

As noted above, the DPH's proposed deficit reduction plan will, if 
successful, reduce the overall DPH deficit for FY 1999-2000 to an 
estimated $4,004,963. According to Ms. Zmuda. the actual FY' 1999- 
2000 deficit could vary from that amount depending on other 
developments, primarily with respect to departmental revenues, 
that could change the deficit in either a positive or negative 
direction. Therefore, it is not anticipated that DPH will know what 
the final year end deficit projection will be until May of 2000 and a 
supplemental appropriation would be forwarded to the Board of 
Supervisors at that time unless the deficit has been eliminated 
entirely prior to May of 2000. 



• 



. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



3. The impact of the Department's financial condition on 
Public Health and Community Health Network programs 

Attachment 2 to this report is a memorandum from Dr. Mitchell H. 
Katz, Director of Health concerning the impact of the Department's 
financial condition on Public Health and Community Health 
Network programs, including a status report on the Department's 
hiring freeze, current staffing levels, planned or implemented 
reductions in service and delays in implementing planned 
programs. The memorandum notes that no emergency, acute 
services or chronic care services have been denied to patients in 
need of these services. Also, the DPH has imposed a selective hiring 
freeze in non-patient care areas and in administrative functions, 
according to Dr. Katz. 



4. Review of progress implementing additional funding 
allocations made by the Board of Supervisors to the DPH 
for improvements to service in the Pharmacy at San 
Francisco General Hospital 

Attachment 3, also provided by Dr. Katz, provides an update on the 
Outpatient Pharmacy at San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), 
including wait times, staffing, enhancements to the Outpatient 
Pharmacy program, and the status of distribution of non- 
prescription drugs. 

• The Pharmacy has not achieved its targeted goal of an average 
2-hour wait time due to the increase in average daily volume of 
prescriptions from 1,150 prescriptions prior to August 1999, to 
1,280 prescriptions since August. The current average wait time 
is 3 hours. 

• Three of the four Pharmacy Technician positions for which 
additional funding was allocated in the FY 1999-2000 DPH 
budget have not been filled. Additionally, 2.5 Pharmacy 
Technician positions became vacant due to retirement in 
December of 1999, totaling 5.5 vacant Pharmacy Technician 
positions out of 27.5 total Pharmacy Technician positions. DPH 
is currently preparing a Civil Service examination and interview- 
process for these positions. 

• One of the two additional Pharmacist positions approved in the 
FY 1999-2000 DPH budget was filled in December of 1999. DPH 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



is continuing to actively recruit for the other new Pharmacist 
position. 

Interviews for additional Interpreters have been conducted and 
DPH is waiting for approval from the Department of Human 
Resources to make an employment offer. 

The Pharmacy has received and is testing an enhanced patient 
call-board located in the SFGH pharmacy to alert patients that 
their prescriptions are ready. Installation is scheduled 
immediately following completion of testing on or about the 
week of February- 21, 2000. Additionally, the Pharmai 
interviewing vendors for installation of a telephone system to 
interface with the outpatient pharmacy computer system. 

In August of 1999, the Pharmacy changed the eligibility criteria 
for receiving prescriptions at no-cost (eliminating the $2.00 per 
prescription co-payment) from patients with income levels up to 
and including 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level to 
patients with income up to and including 200 percent of the 
Federal Poverty Level. The Federal Poverty Level annual 
income is $11,064 annually for a household of two persons. 
Therefore, patients with incomes up to 200 percent of the 
Federal Poverty Level, or $22,128 annually for a household of 
two persons, are now exempt from the $2.00 per prescription co- 
payment. 

In January of 2000, San Francisco General Hospital's Pharmacy 
and Therapeutics Committee completed the list of non- 
prescription drugs that will be issued at no cost to patients and 
implemented the list on February' 1, 2000. Some of these non- 
prescription drugs will be dispensed in the Health Clinics, 
decreasing the volume of the Outpatient Pharmacy. 



5. Review of San Francisco General Hospital's Emergency 
Room (ER) caseload and wait times since the recent 
closure of Mt. Zion's emergency room 

According to Ms. Zmuda. SFGH has not experienced a noticeable 
increase in ER utilization that is directly Linked to the closure of 
Mt. Zion. Ms. Zmuda adds that the ER is seeing four to si:: 
additional visitors each day, but that small increase may be 
attributed to seasonal effects such as rain and cold weather or the 
incidence of influenza. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



a 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 

6. A review of capital and maintenance expenditures made 
during FY 1999-2000, the current condition of the physical 
plant at San Francisco General Hospital and the 
Community Health Network, and the Department's entire 
list of pending or proposed capital expenditures 

Attachment 4 to this report provides a summary of DPH's approved 
Capital Improvement and Facilities Maintenance budget for FY 
1999-2000 (totaling $3,972,000) and the DPH request for FY 2000- 
2001 of $5,050,000. 

As noted previously, the DPH plan to reduce the current Fiscal 
Year 1999-2000 budget deficit includes estimated savings of 
$300,000 from Capital Improvement Projects and equipment. 
According to Ms. Zmuda, the anticipated savings from Capital 
Improvement Projects will result from closing out completed project 
appropriations authorized prior to Fiscal Year 1999-2000. 

Ms. Zmuda notes that the Capital Improvement and Facilities 
Maintenance budget request for FY 2000-2001 of $5,050,000 is only 
a portion of the DPH total need of $25,366,984 for such 
expenditures. The $5,050,000 Capital Improvement and Facilities 
Maintenance budget request for FY 2000-2001 is a reduced amount 
intended to comply with the budget policy instruction of the 
Mayor's Office. DPH provides the following summary totals for high 
priority capital needs: 

SFGH Capital Improvement Projects $13,916,300 

SFGH Facilities Maintenance 505,000 

SFGH Seismic Upgrade (State Mandated SB1953) 2,050,000 

Laguna Honda Capital Facilities Maintenance 6,059,684 

Primary Care Centers Capital Improvement Projects 2,347,000 

Primary Care Centers Facilities Maintenance 429,000 

Public Health Facilities Maintenance 60.000 

Total $ 25,366,984 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 9, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



7. Projections for DPH's FY 2000-2001 budget 

As of the writing of this report, DPH staff are preparing a proposed 
FY 2000-2001 budget for submission to the Health Commission on 
February 8, 2000. The Health Commission is scheduled to adopt a 
proposed budget for submission to the Mayor on February 15, 2000. 

Ms. Zmuda has advised that DPH will provide the Finance and 
Labor Committee directly with such information on their proposed 
FY 2000-2001 budget at the Committee's meeting on February 9, 
2000. 




7/ 



rz. 



arvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Yee 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 



Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 1 
fage .1 of 7 



City and County of San Francisco 



Department of Public Health 




February 1,2000 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: President Roma Guy 

and Honorable Members of the Health Commission 

THROUGH: Mitchell Katz, M.D. '^hVU^ L 1 ( 

Director, Department of Public Health 



FROM: Monique Zmuda 

Chief Financial Offi 



RE: 




Revenue and Expenditure Report - 2nd Quarter FY L999-00 



The Department of Public Health is projecting a year-end deficit of SI 5.4 million for FY 99-00 
based on expenditures and revenues for the second quarter ending December 31, 2000. 
Projections include revenue shortfalls of SI 1.3 million and overexpenditures of S4.1 million. 

Reduction Plan 

In response to the projected deficit for the current year, Department staff are proposing a SI 1.4 
million plan to reduce expenditures and increase revenues. If approved, this plan will reduce the 
projected deficit to S4.0 million by fiscal year-end. The proposed reduction plan is as follows. 

Additional revenues for: 

• Realignment revenue based on estimates provided by the Controller: 

• SB90 revenues held in reserve by the Controller; and 

• Medi-Cal revenues reimbursed for administrative activities. 

Expenditures include: 

• Personnel savings resulting from a freeze on vacant positions; 

• Materials and supplies savings; 

• Contractual services savings from the delayed start up of new programs; 

• Capital and equipment savings; and 

• Other operating expenditure savings. 

The attached table shows projected fiscal year revenues and expenditures by division with and 
without the reduction plan. A more detailed discussion of revenue and expense projections as 
well as the reduction plan are contained below. 



Finance 



101 Grove Street 



»NTCA:\«iM:_«*REPORTSvaUARTm.YUq99-00 doc 01CS/00 



San Francisco, CA 94102 

5". o 



c 
o 

o 

0) 
-r- '5' 



D. 

O 
tf) 

C 
o "- 

Q. O 
X t"l 
UJ TO 

1 6 

TO T"" 



s « 

E c 

r © 

TO > 

C 0) 

Q o 
o 

> 
u_ 



CN 






— o 



o> o co o 
<"> as 

t- as 



m r- o oi cm 

t: n o as 

o co o coi to 

cm co o T- ! r— 

m co o *— ' ^> 

r~ o v ax o 



O o> m co coi o 

w m oi io Ho 

to in co co t-J o 

w" tt" t-~ w? ol V 

(v M cm n i- in 

O CO O COl (O 



o o 10 o\ >o 

o o m ol m 

O O V CM T_ 

o" o" to" CM «o~ 



Attachment ] 
Page 1 of 7 



co 



in 



O O CO CO r-j lO 

to in N ID Cl| N 

r- m r- co oil en 

to" tt" tt t-" t-1 to" 

o rj « s i- n 

(D to r- — - »-J t^ 

o> ""^ t «— I m~ 



m r>- m of r^ 



IN D ID >-| <- 

ro co m o>| o 
co co to r^i co 



cn co cm to *-• o 

to t «- to V *- 

CO it- CO O 1-1 O) 

m to* m* t" cm! ■*/ 

i- to m t- t- co 



to to to 

CN* 



«-J *\ 



— t- m — • to 

tt eo m tti o 

O r— t ,— i m 

O* m" to col h»" 

oi « m ni o 

CN CO rr rj-| UJ 



> s 



VI — 



.5 Q 



CO tt CT — COI O 

r^ to m o> Oi t- 

o) co in cn toi co 

1- 1-" to* t/ r»"| 1" 

t- t- m co coi m 

m to co o t-I to 

in in m co cn" cn 

m tN co cni ^ 

t t- to 



i- t- r~- o cni o 

o> -<r 7 m iolo 

m CN CN CO -t cn 

to m* --* co" ml to" 

o t o T CNI T- 

^ Ol s CI Ol o 

m cn" -c co" --'■ r--" 

m CN CO CNl CO 

TJ- t- tO 



r-~ tt o to oi m 

o co to co — — 

"T m T Ol (Ml o 

to r- o in cm 

tO t; (O CO o 

NOT- O 

C>" T-" CO" T-" 



tt in t- co cni m 
to cn to cn r- co 

t- co r- t to 1 to 



o 


CD 


DO 


(X 


t 


0) 


CN 


T 


Oi 


(0 


r- 


m 


o 


CO. 


to 


•.- 


IN 


cm 




a 




EC 




3 


C7I 


X 


•- 


CO 


cn. 


-r 


r-. 


T 


O 


mi 


m 




ia 


-.- 


ml 


CN 




s 


_ 


co. 


CN 


m 


o 


cn 


-=• 


r- 


[N 


■- 


in 


CM 


cc 


-r 


cn 


in 


Oi 


r~ 


I 1 


c ) 


m 


CM. 


en 


«- 


in 


CO 


Oi 


o 


DC 


-r 


a 


ml 


to 




m 


m 


o, 


CO 














CO 


O 


a» 






-r 


O 


m 


-1 


SI 


in 


a 


"« 


O 



CM S O COl ID 

T CO O tOI O 

*7 tN COl CO 



in CO i- CNI T- 

to m o oi co 

t- to <n t; r- 



CO 


(0 


t- CN mi T 


C 


CO 


CO tO CNI T- 


o 


f- 


CN CO Ol CO 



r- in 


in 


COl T- 


T CI 


m 


Oi cn 


-- cn 


■X'. 


Oi c- 



> s 



-• ■- s O Oil 
o ^ t in oi 

m CN CN CO -<ri 



co -c to coi m 
t- m to mi to 



t- r~- — coi cm 

co o o -<ri r- 

— cn r- in oi eo 



• 





<^ 


m 


_ 


CO 


mi 


to 


JZ. 


a 


T 


t ) 


-r 


CN 




i- 


ffl 


r» 


CI 


Ol 


CO 


o 


in 


fN 


T 


ro 


-- 


f~ 


< 


in 


CN 


CO 




CN 


CO 


















o-i 













T CO 


in 


Oi c~ 


o o 


in 


cni cn 


t- m 


CO 


tOl o 



— O <0 jZ 

c t— ^ — 

; - £ co £ 

o il ij ■: i) 

O if) _i C X 



— = <u 

co co c? 

« - o "- 

= -S >■ ™ « 

5 « ™ I 



— CO 



o <y o & — — 
CL O O "§ 00 CO 



.2 -= 2 






Attachment 1 
^age 3 o£ 7 



*> 






Page 3 

COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK 

San Francisco General Hospital.- Year-end projections show a shortfall of 59,603,789. 

Revenues are projected to be $9,288,407 under budget due to: 

• a S900,000 deficit for Short Doyle Medi-Cal revenues due to lower than expected 
reimbursement for acute inpatient psychiatric services. Tne Short Doyle match is projected to 
be as budgeted (58. 2 million); 

• a 56,895,284 deficit in Medi-Cal based on year-to-date actual revenues; 

• a S4,l 86,590 deficit in Medicare revenues primarily resulting from lower than expected 
reimbursement; 

• a SI, 763, 530 surplus in patient revenues primarily from additional capitation revenue (S3. 8 
million) offset by lower than expected IKSS rcenue. The IHSS revenue shortfall will be 
offset by an equivalent savings in work order expense; 

• a S929,937 surplus in miscellaneous revenues primarily due to higher than expected 
capitation fees. 

Expenditures are projected to be over budget by S3 1 5,382 due to: 

• a S2, 192,327 deficit from salaries and fringe benefits based on year-to-date actual expense; 

• a SI, 300, 000 deficit in contractual services. This deficit is offset by an equivalent savings in 
materials and supplies and represents a transfer of expense between budget line items; 

• a S 1 ,300,000 surplus in materials and supplies offset by an equivalent deficit in contractual 
services; and 

• a S 1 ,876,945 surplus in workorders to other departments for lower than expected IHSS 
expense. 

Plan to Address Deficit 

The proposed plan to address the deficit at San Francisco General Hospital includes $3.5 million 
in additional revenue and expenditure savings. This proposed plan will reduce the projected 
deficit to $6.1 million. The proposed plan includes: 

• S 1 .2 million in additional Realignment revenues based on revised estimates from the 
Controller; and 

• Reduction of S2.3 million in operating costs, including materials and supplies, and 
contractual services. 

Current projections for Medi-Cal SB 855 assume revenues of $39 million. This is a $5 million 
reduction from the $44 million received last fiscal year. However, preliminary indications are 
that actual revenue received this fiscal year could be less than $39 million. More details will be 
available in about a month. Department staff will keep the Health Commission informed of anv 
significant revisions in SB855 revenue. 

Laguna Honda Hospital: Year-end projections show a shortfall of S824,559. 

Revenues are projected to be $1,841,584 over budget due to: 



_-%K£J»OAr3»OUJmTKL'n2q»»-00 c 



Attachment i 
Page 4 of 7 



Pa?e 4 



• a $4,137,816 surplus in Medi-Cal revenues primarily due to increased census and an increase 
in the SNF reimbursement rate of S3. 78 per day; 

• a $1,742,441 deficit in Medicare revenues primarily due to a shift in payor mix; 

• a $448,550 deficit in patient revenues due to an increased allowance for uncollectible 
accounts; and 

• a $105,241 deficit in other miscellaneous revenues primarily due to a decrease in cafeteria 
meal sales. 

Expenditures are projected to be over budget by $2,666,143 due to: 

• a $1,666,143 deficit from salaries and fringe benefits based on year-to-date actual expense; 

• a $500,000 deficit in materials and supplies primarily due to increased pharmaceutical 
expense; and 

• a $500,00 deficit in workorders to other departments for additional workers compensation 
expense. 

Plan to Address Deficit 

The proposed plan to address the deficit at Laguna Honda Hospital includes S824.559 in 
additional revenue and expenditure savings. This proposed plan will reduce the projected deficit 
and balance the budget. The proposed plan includes: 

• Increasing Medi-Cal and Medicare revenues by increasing billing of physician services, and 
assuming that State Medi-Cal rate increase for personnel can be applied to the current level 
of personnel expenditures; and 

• Reducing use of temporary nursing time and overtime. 

Primary Care: Year-end projections show a shortfall of S- 1 . 124,778. 

Revenues are projected to be $3,469,466 under budget due to: 

• a $2,226,833 deficit in Medi-Cal revenues primarily from lower than expect FQHC revenues: 

• a 5485,068 surplus in Medicare revenues due to higher than expected reimbursement; 

• a S858.486 deficit in Patient revenues based on year-to-date actual revenues; 

• a S3 19,503 surplus in miscellaneous revenues primarily from higher than expected capitation 
payments; and 

• a $1,188,718 shortfall in revenues associated with uncollectible accounts. This shortfall will 
reduce the actual revenues anticipated from accounts receivable in patient payments. 

Expenditures are projected to be over budget by S655.312 from salaries and frinae benefits based 
on year-to-date actual expense. 

Plan to Address Deficit 

The proposed plan to address the deficit in Primary Care includes S92 1,895 in additional re- 
and expenditure savings. This proposed plan will reduce the projected deficit to S3 .2 million. 
Tne proposed plan includes 

♦ Increasing Medi-Cal MAA-TCM revenues by S400.000 for targeted case management and 
administrative activities; and 



, .VNTCAr<««€_wM»EPORT3\QUAH , mLY\2<»H^0 C 



56 



tr - 



Attachment 1 
Page b of. 7 

Page 5 

• Reducing use of temporary nursing staff and overtime, and reducing other operating accounts 
for a total cost reduction of $521,895. 

Health at Home: Year-end projections show a shortfall of $71 ,868. 

Revenues are projected to be $85,936 under budget due to: 

• a $76,278 surplus in Medi-Cal revenues based on year-to-date actual revenues; 

• a $169,253 deficit in Medicare revenues due to lower than expected reimbursement - and 

• a $7,039 surplus in Patient revenues based on year-to-date actual revenues. 

Expenditures are projected to be under budget by 514,068 due to: 

• a $14,394 surplus from salaries and fringe benefits